Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate West Knox Elementary School on being named a President's Challenge State Champion by the President's Council on Physical Fitness, PCPFS, for 2007-2008. Their accomplishment is an example for all schools across the Commonwealth and our Nation.

Each year the PCPFS State Champion award is presented in all 50 States to 3 schools with the highest number of students scoring at or above the 85th percentile on the President's Challenge Physical Fitness Test. The test measures four components of physical fitness: a 1-mile run-walk for heart and lung endurance; curl ups for abdominal strength and endurance; a ``sit and reach'' stretch for muscular flexibility; pullups for upper body strength and endurance; and a shuttle run for agility. The inclusion of West Knox Elementary School in this group is a credit to the dedication of its students, staff, and administration.

West Knox Elementary School is a role model to other institutions through its dedication to helping students gain physical fitness skills and to understanding the health benefits of regular physical activity. In a time in which many young people are faced with weight related problems, West Knox Elementary has proven to be a leader by encouraging students and adults to engage in physical activity.

West Knox Elementary School is an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky and to student and community leaders everywhere. I look forward to seeing all they will accomplish in the future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I do not wish to interfere with the negotiations going on and the potential of an agreement being reached on the judges and the other things that are being discussed, but I do have about 15 minutes on the current situation in the markets, and I would like to speak on that. So I would be more than happy to wait for them to finish their negotiations or go ahead and speak as though in morning business, depending on the ruling of the Chair.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Federal Reserve Policy

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the current economic situation and the bailout bill that will soon be coming to the floor of the Senate. Let me start by saying I am as concerned about what is going on in the financial markets and the economy as everyone else. I know there are extreme tensions in the credit markets, and those problems could soon have an impact on businesses and individuals who had nothing to do with the mortgage mess. However, I do not agree that the bill we have been discussing, and would probably come to the floor of the Senate, will fix those problems.

I also strongly disagree with the Senators who have come to the floor and declared that this crisis is a failure of the free markets. No. The root of the crisis is the failure of Government. It comes from a failure of regulation and, most importantly, monetary policy. In the long term, we certainly need to update our financial regulations to reflect the realities of our modern economic system. But it is just plain wrong to blame failures of our regulations and regulators on the markets.

A little history is in order. Our financial regulations are based on structures put in place during the Great Depression. Our laws simply do not reflect the current landscape of the financial markets. Once upon a time, banks may have been the only instruments that were a danger to the entire financial system, but it is now clear that other institutions are now so big and connected that we cannot ignore them in the future. Also, many of today's common financial instruments did not even exist 20 years ago, much less when our laws were written.

But our regulatory structure is not the only problem. The real fuel on the fire of this crisis has been the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. I have been a vocal critic of the Fed for many years and have been warning that their policies would hurt Americans in the short and long run. For most of these years, I did not have much company. But I am glad many economists and commentators have recently joined me in my criticism of the Fed.

During the second half of his time as Fed Chief, former Chairman Alan Greenspan tried to micromanage the economy with monetary policy. Any economy is going to have its ups and downs, and it was foolish to try to stop that. But Chairman Greenspan did it anyway. By trying to smooth out those bumps, he overshot to the high and low sides, creating bubbles and then recessions.

I have spoken many times on the floor about the Fed policies that led to the housing bubble, but a few parts are worth repeating. Everyone remembers the dot-com bubble, which itself was partly a result of the easy money pumped into the system by the Fed in the late 1990s. Well, Chairman Greenspan set out to pop that bubble and kept raising interest rates in the face of a slowdown, driving the economy into recession.

In order to undo the problems created by his tight money, he then overshot the other way, taking interest rates as low as 1 percent for a year and below 2 percent for nearly 3 years. In turn, that easy money ignited the housing market by bringing mortgage interest rates to alltime lows. Low-cost borrowing encouraged excessive risk taking in the financial markets and led investors to pump borrowed funds into all kinds of investments, including the various mortgage lending vehicles.

In 2004, Mr. Greenspan encouraged borrowers to get adjustable rate mortgages because of all the money they would save. Four months later, he started a series of 17 interest rate increases that helped make those mortgages unaffordable for the hundreds of thousands of borrowers who listened to his advice. I warned him about that advice the following day after his speech, but that warning fell on deaf ears.

Then, in 2005, rising interest rates and housing price appreciation overcame the ability of borrowers to afford the house they wanted. To keep the party going, borrowers, lenders, investors, rating agencies, and everyone else involved lowered their standards and kept mortgages flowing to less creditworthy borrowers who were buying evermore expensive homes.

Chairman Greenspan also let investors and homeowners down by failing to police the banks and other lenders as they wrote even more risky mortgages. Regulated banks were allowed to keep most of their risky assets off their balance sheets. Even worse, he refused to use the power Congress gave the Federal Reserve in the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 to oversee all lenders, even those not affiliated with banks. His refusal to rein in the worst lending practices allowed banks and others, including Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to write the loans that are now at the center of our mortgage crisis. Chairman Ben Bernanke issued rules under that law in July of 2008--14 years later--but that was far too late to solve the problem.

Before turning to the coming legislation, I wish to mention a few more failures of Government that directly contributed to this mess. Federal regulations require the use of ratings from rating agencies that have proven to be wrong on the biggest financial failures of the last decade. The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make loans they would not otherwise make based on the credit history of the borrower. The Securities and Exchange Commission, under former Chairman Donaldson, failed to establish meaningful oversight and leverage restrictions for investment banks.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used the implied backing of the Government to grow so large that their takeover by the Government effectively doubled the national debt. They were pushed by their executives and the Clinton administration to loosen their lending standards and write the loans that drove the companies to the point of being bailed out by the taxpayers.

Finally, the same individuals who have come to this building to ask for the latest bailout set the stage for the very panic they are using to justify the bailout. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Fed Chairman set expectations for Government intervention when they bailed out Bear Stearns in March. The markets operated all summer with the belief that the Government would step in and rescue failing firms. Then they let Lehman Brothers fail, and the markets had to adjust to the idea that Wall Street would have to take the losses for Wall Street's bad decisions, not the taxpayers. That new uncertainty could be the most significant contributing factor to why the markets panicked last week. What is more, the panic today is a result of the high expectations set last week when the Secretary and Chairman announced their plan. When resistance in Congress and the public outrage over the plan became clear, the markets walked back to the edge of panic.

Bailout Proposal

Now I wish to talk about the bailout bill that we expect to have on the floor of the Senate soon. The Paulson proposal is an attempt to do what we so often do in Washington, DC--throw money at the problem. We cannot make bad mortgages go away. We cannot make the losses that our financial institutions are facing go away. Someone must take those losses. We can either let the people who made the bad decisions bear the consequences of their actions or we can spread the pain to others. That is exactly what Secretary Paulson proposes to do: take Wall Street's pain and spread it to Main Street, the taxpayers.

We all know it is not fair to taxpayers to pick up Wall Street's tab. But what we do not know is if this plan could even work. All we have is the word of the Treasury Secretary and the Fed Chairman. But they have been wrong throughout this whole housing mess. They have previously told us that subprime problems would not spread and the economy was strong. Now they say we are on the edge of a severe recession or maybe the second-largest depression in the history of this great Republic.

Well, I am not buying it, and neither are many of our Nation's leading economists. If some sort of Government intervention is needed to fix the mess created by the Government failure I talked about earlier, we need to get it right. Congress owes it to the American people to slow down and think this through. We need to know that whatever we do is going to fix the problem, protect the taxpayers, not reward those who made bad decisions, and make sure this does not happen again. But we cannot do that in 1 week as we are all trying to rush home. Congress needs to take this seriously and stay until we find the right solution, not just throw $700 billion at Wall Street as we walk out the door.

Now, Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent that the two letters I mentioned from economists opposing the bill, along with an article from the New York Times from 1999 about the Clinton administration pushing Fannie and Freddie into risky loans, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Kenny Perry and J.B. Holmes for their contribution to the success of the 2008 United States Ryder Cup team.

The 2008 Ryder Cup was recently held in my home State at the Valhalla Golf Club in Louisville, KY. On Sunday, the American team defeated the Europeans 16\1/2\ to 11\1/2\. This was their first Ryder Cup victory since 1999. If not for the remarkable performances by Mr. Perry and Mr. Holmes, this success would not have been possible.

Mr. Perry was born in Elizabethtown, KY, but calls Franklin, KY, his home. He started playing golf at the age of 7 and spent years perfecting his game. He later went on to attend Western Kentucky University and started golfing professionally in 1982. He has shown his dedication to the game of golf by building a public golf course in his hometown specifically designed for handicapped individuals. Perry's performance at this year's Ryder Cup was exceptional as he finished with a total record of two wins, one loss, and one tie. His achievements on and off the course are to be commended.

Mr. Holmes was born and currently resides in Campbellsville, KY. He has played golf most of his life, including playing for his local high school golf team as a third grade elementary student. He later went on to attend the University of Kentucky and started playing professional golf in 2005. His hard work and dedication have earned him the right to be named among the highest skilled golfers in the world. Mr. Holmes' performance at the 2008 Ryder Cup was one of the best. He finished with a total score of two wins, no losses, and one tie. It was a pleasure to watch Mr. Holmes compete and I congratulate him on an outstanding performance.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Perry and Mr. Holmes for their remarkable performance and achievement. These two men have represented Kentucky and the United States well.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the Institute of Real Estate Management, IREM, on its 75th anniversary. As an affiliate of the National Association of Realtors, IREM advocates on behalf of the real estate management industry. With 80 U.S. chapters, eight international chapters, and several partnerships around the globe, IREM constantly strives to promote the principles of professional real estate management.

Ethics are the cornerstone of the IREM mission. The IREM Code of Professional Ethics seeks to defend the public interest, promote healthy competition, and guarantee that IREM members will act ethically. Actively and strictly enforced, the Code of Professional Ethics provides a foundation for public trust in the integrity and expertise of professional real estate managers. IREM's commitment to ethics underlies its 75 years of success as a professional association.

I would also like to congratulate IREM Kentucky chapter 59, which will be celebrating its 40th anniversary on November 10, 2008. Kentucky chapter 59 is the largest IREM chapter in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and serves as an excellent resource on real estate management education and information for its members.

I congratulate IREM on more than seven decades of dedication to the real estate management profession. By providing dedicated service to its members, as well as maintaining high standards for the real estate industry as a whole, IREM serves as an exemplary model of a professional association.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great U.S. Senator and friend, Senator Wayne Allard. His strong political leadership will be greatly missed by the people of Colorado and the United States.

I got to serve with Wayne on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and the Senate Budget Committee. As fellow fiscal conservatives, we share many of the same values and concerns. One of his core beliefs, and mine, is that we must reduce wasteful government spending and work to balance the Federal budget. This is a philosophy that Wayne applied to every piece of legislation that came in front of him. It was important for him to do everything he could do as a public servant to save the taxpayers' money. I know that I could always count on Wayne to follow these principals and stay true to his conservative roots.

As many of you know, Wayne had a successful career as a veterinarian before he came to Congress. With the help of his wife Joan, they built a successful veterinary practice in Loveland, CO, where they raised their two daughters, Christi and Cheryl. As a veterinarian and as a U.S. Senator, Wayne contributed more than most to the people of this country. He will be greatly missed by me here in the Senate, but I know he is looking forward to spending more time with his family back in Colorado. I wish Wayne the best of luck as he begins the next chapter of his life.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I congratulate Ms. Laura Sanders as Kentucky's 2008 No Child Left Behind American Star of Teaching. Initiated in 2004, the American Starts of Teaching is part of the U.S. Department of Education's Teacher-to-Teacher Initiative. By offering regional and district workshops, roundtables for teachers and principals, and digital learning, the Teacher-to-Teacher Initiative allows some of our nation's best teachers to share strategies to raise student achievement and inform teachers of successful research-based practices. Each year, over one million, students are taught by a teacher who participated in the Teacher-to-Teacher Initiative.

Ms. Sanders, a kindergarten teacher at Cumberland Trace Elementary School in Bowling Green, KY, has been recognized as one of Kentucky's top teachers. She developed teaching practices in her classroom along with research-based materials that have helped her students to consistently make clear improvements. Over the past 2 years, her students' reading scores have gone from the 50th percentile in the fall to over the 85th and 91st percentile the following spring. Ms. Sanders' ability to assess the individual needs of each student has enabled her to ensure that every child is working at an appropriate pace and level. Having already been a recipient of numerous awards for her contribution to education, her work is widely recognized.

I am proud to recognize Ms. Sanders for her ability to effectively challenge students at Cumberland Trace Elementary School, while at the same time sharing her techniques with other teachers--making a difference in the lives of students. Her work is an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky and to teachers everywhere. I look forward to seeing all that she will accomplish in the future.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on the bill.

We are in an energy crisis. Don't let a 10 percent drop in oil prices fool you. We are in for a long battle with energy costs and America will need to step up if we want to keep driving our cars, flying our jets, and fueling our economy.

But this bill before us today isn't about lowering prices. it is about finding someone to blame so Americans don't blame the Democrats for failing to act in Congress.

Democrats need a scapegoat because under their watch America has become more addicted to oil than ever and gas prices have more than doubled. They don't want to solve your problems. They don't want to face the environmental lobbyists who don't care how much Americans pay for energy as long as it doesn't come from oil and coal. They want to find someone to blame. They have blamed oil companies, Republicans, the Middle East, and the military. Today it is energy speculators.

I say the time for scapegoats and politics is over. Americans don't want excuses or even someone to blame--Americans want solutions.

They want to be able to afford to drive their truck to work every day. They don't want to worry about turning on the air conditioner or how much it is going to cost to heat their homes this winter.

Back home in my State of Kentucky I have seen how much these prices are hurting families. I know many people who moved farther out into the suburbs to get a bigger yard and more for their real estate investment. Now those same people are stuck using $4.50 gasoline for their workday commute. Another community in eastern Kentucky is fighting to keep local bus service running to their senior center.

Many older Americans rely on bus and shuttle services to get out of their homes and are being cut off from their community services because of high prices. There are even places that have gone to a four-day school week to cut back on the cost of busing students.

These people want solutions for energy prices, not more politics.

The best way to address high prices is to get more fuel on the market. America has domestic energy resources that we only need to open up.

I have supported bills and amendments that would expand offshore drilling, start coal-to-liquid fuel production, encourage alternative sources of jet fuel, expand cellulosic biomass fuels, and many other issues. Facing these issues is what Congress should be working on.

For example, I think one part of our solution should be more offshore drilling. More domestic oil means less we have to buy from the Middle East, lower transportation costs, a more stable supply, and therefore lower prices. So why have the Democrats in Congress stopped us from acting on this one issue?

If it is because of the environment, I say we will make sure any new drilling is the cleanest and safest in the world. If it is because we are not sure what to do with the Federal revenue, I am ready to discuss it and develop a compromise. What is the problem with letting individual States choose whether or not to drill offshore? Even if it takes a decade to get to full production, we have to start somewhere.

Congress should at least have the debate and vote on the issue. But every time we try to address even one energy production issue, we are stopped in our tracks and blocked from offering amendments.

I am tired of watching this Democrat-led Congress do nothing. The energy crisis has gone on long enough. We can talk all day about who to blame and make up excuses, but that won't bring down energy prices.

Instead, we find ourselves discussing another bill that tries to blame someone rather than address the problems of domestic production and supply.

The other side is selling you a bill of goods when they say this legislation would impact energy prices. I hear they have a great deal for you on a bridge in Brooklyn too.

This bill will undermine legitimate hedging activities and threatens the liquidity of the commodities marketplace. Futures markets make it possible to buy and sell things at a specific price and date in the future. These markets allow participants to offset risk of price changes to those willing to take risks.

This legislation would also make us citizens subject to foreign rules and regulations related to energy trading. Understanding U.S. laws will not be enough, as energy traders will be required to consult with foreign boards of trade and will be subject to the regulations made by foreign governments.

This bill would also encourage traders to use foreign markets that do not

have as many regulations and take American jobs and business activity with them. But my principal concern with this bill is that it asks a Federal regulator, the CFTC, to wade into the marketplace and make a determination of what is and what is not legitimate trading activity.

Let me explain how this works. How many Americans stock up on an item when they see a good sale at the grocery store? I know I do. Or maybe some people wait to buy in bulk with buy one get one free coupons.

While we don't resell our groceries to someone else, this simple act of timing our purchases or varying how much and when we buy is similar to what traders do in the commodities markets.

Now imagine the Government used this same legislation to regulate grocery shopping that has been proposed for the energy markets. It would mean the Government would keep track of all your purchases and determine whether you were a legitimate or non legitimate grocery shopper. Do you want the government penalizing you if they feel you are overbuying a certain product?

Buy too many hot dogs in 1 month and the Government could impose limits on your purchases or keep you out of grocery stores altogether.

While this legislation isn't going to regulate grocery stores, this bill is the beginning of more government regulations that will limit your options. Maybe next Congress will regulate the precious metals market and determine that buying gold jewelry is a non legitimate purchase, penalizing Americans who want to buy jewelry. Or will the government say that collecting shotguns is a non legitimate purchase that increases the cost of shotguns, allowing it to limit sales to gun collectors?

Allowing the Government to over regulate any market is a recipe for disaster that puts Americans' freedom at risk.

In America, we are proud of our open markets and lack of government interference. We need the already established rules to stop illegal activities such as price manipulation and cornering markets, but we do not need new regulations that prohibit normal market activities, such as buying and selling commodities as an investment or as a price hedge.

I will support efforts to make the markets as transparent as possible. Information allows traders to most efficiently allocate resources and make sure prices actually reflect supply and demand. But I find it unreasonable to on the one hand say the market needs to be more transparent so it can work efficiently, and then on the other mandate new requirements and regulations that will clog the market and prevent it from working normally.

The bottom line is that this legislation will not bring down energy prices.

However, there is something Congress and America can do about prices--we can produce more of own energy. I strongly believe that America should use every resource it has to produce energy. Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is worse than simply paying too much at the pump; it is a threat to national security. Every gallon of fuel we make from biomass, domestic oil and gas, and coal is a gallon of fuel we don't have to buy from the Middle East. It is just that simple.

We need a Manhattan Project for energy in America.

The greatest minds we have should be working on ways to produce alternative fuel, capture and use carbon emissions, produce clean electricity, and improve oil and gas production.

We should agree to take politics out of clean energy and ensure that government programs are technology and feedstock neutral. Too often I see tax incentives and programs that pick and choose what technology or process America should use.

To support all these alternative technologies, we need to change the way government spends money.

I think we should pick performance-based goals--like zero emission alternatives to oil--and let the marketplace decide the most efficient way to achieve it. If you can produce an environmentally sound transportation fuel, we should not care whether it comes from coal or switch grass.

If you can produce a megawatt of clean energy, we should not care if it comes from waste heat on a paper mill or from underground geothermal. By opening up our options, we will get more for the Government dollar and America will see results faster.

I believe the most important alternative fuel technology is coal-to- liquids. We are sitting on a huge coal reserve that we can turn into diesel for our trucks and aviation fuel for our planes. And our military can no longer rely on imported oil from the Middle East. The Air Force has tested this fuel, and it burns cooler and cleaner than conventional fuel. It has less pollution as well. And I know that with the right government incentives and carbon capture technology, we can make coal-to-liquid fuel with less greenhouse gases than oil-based fuels.

Kentucky coal can help bring down the price of oil, provide a secure fuel for our military, reduce pollution, and create jobs.

While new domestic production will go a long way to bring down prices, we should also think about conservation efforts. There are the simple things like turning off lights we don't use and more important measures like the increased fuel economy standards Congress passed. But there are other ways to reduce fuel use using technology. For example, we have a company in Kentucky that produces retrofit kits to reduce diesel fuel use while trucks are idling.

The answer to America's energy problems is more domestic production, clean technologies, and conservation. We have the resources and know- how to make clean energy, but for the last few decades our government regulations have held us back. We should not find more ways to over regulate our markets--we should vote now to open up domestic production and pursue promising alternative fuel technologies that will actually bring down the prices of oil and gas at the pump for the American people.

Mr. President, I have an amendment I wish to talk about, and I will be glad to offer it now. I see the chairman on the floor. If he wishes to make a statement, that is fine.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 5073, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief. However, the bill that is before us today--the so-called PEPFAR reauthorization bill--is a far cry from our original proposal to combat AIDS in Africa.

PEPFAR is one of our most successful foreign assistance programs. Since enactment in 2003, it has provided lifesaving treatment to 10 million people afflicted by HIV/AIDS, including children orphaned by AIDS. It has prevented 7 million new HIV infections and is on track to support treatment for an additional 2 million people. This is a successful program, and I am proud to have supported it. Through PEPFAR, the United States continues to be a leader in international assistance. With our generosity, we have created strong partnerships in countries where 5 years ago AIDS threatened to destroy entire generations. I wish to see us remain a leader in this effort, and it is because of this that I am concerned about the substantial changes made in the program in both the House and Senate reauthorization bills. These are not small changes made to a program to increase authorization levels or the number of patients treated in a bill; these are substantial changes that would jeopardize the success of the program as well as compromise the integrity of America's foreign assistance.

Aside from tripling the current funding levels, which I will address in a minute, the focus of the bill seems to be less on prevention and treatment of AIDS and more on development assistance. I am not opposed to development

assistance, but I do not believe an emergency global AIDS bill is the place to address issues such as water sanitation and/or the inheritance rights of women.

It detracts from the focus of the bill and shifts away funding from the core components of the program: treatment and prevention. They are what have made PEPFAR successful.

I oppose any efforts to weaken them or to needlessly shift money away from them to other lower priority programs.

This is why I was shocked and disappointed that both the House and the Senate committee-passed bills removed the AIDS treatment and prevention mandates.

Why would you remove language in a Global AIDS bill that would require the money to be spent on the treatment and prevention of AIDS? Is it not the purpose of the bill to prevent and treat AIDS?

Two months ago, I had the opportunity to meet with several doctors and patients from Uganda. Through their firsthand account, I could see how PEPFAR dollars, when used wisely, can combat the spread of AIDS and be used to provide lifesaving treatment.

One of the women I met with told me how PEPFAR saved her life. Through the program, she was able to treat this deadly disease in a way that enabled her to live a normal life. She now has a job and provides for her four children. In speaking with her, I was not only struck by her conviction for life but her insistence that I continue to work to strengthen the reauthorization of PEPFAR. Like me, she knew the changes made to the program could severely weaken its effectiveness and jeopardize its future success.

This woman is a living example of how PEPFAR can be successful if implemented as the program originally intended. Through her conviction, I, along with several of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, worked to fix this bill. We were able to make some improvements, such as restoring a treatment mandate that is still lower than the current program levels--but many problems still exist.

When so many Americans are facing economic problems at home, I have a hard time needlessly tripling the funding for this program. This is not the level requested by the administration. This is not even the level that the Congressional Budget Office says can be spent down by PEPFAR organizations within 5 years. This is $15 billion more than that.

To put that in context, this is triple the amount of money needed to fund the reauthorization of our domestic health care program for children, which is called SCHIP.

I know many Kentuckians would like to see this program reauthorized.

This is reckless spending, plain and simple. We owe it to the American taxpayer to be better stewards of their tax dollars. We should know where our taxpayer dollars are going--or not going--as in the case of Senator DeMint's amendment on abortion.

We should also prioritize our funding for global AIDS. We need to ensure that these funds reach the neediest countries and not those that can afford their own space and nuclear programs, such as China and Russia.

At a time when China is tripling--I say tripling--their defense budget and manipulating their currency, I have a hard time spending billions of dollars in China to provide funding for treatment that we could use at home for our own AIDS programs.

Unfortunately, this is another example of how the so-called PEPFAR reauthorization bills have gone so far outside the original intent of the program. This is why I am offering my amendment.

The Bunning amendment simply reauthorizes the current program for another 5 years, while also continuing to fund the development of a malaria vaccine.

It maintains our original commitment to support the global fight against HIV/AIDS.

I urge my colleagues today to join me in my support for the current PEPFAR Program. I ask them to support my amendment so we can ensure that this program continues to be successful within the original scope of the program as intended by Congress and by the President.

Madam President, before I yield the floor, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Madam President, I would like to try to respond to all these statements made since I offered my amendment. It seems that when we get a good program going in the Congress, one that is funded properly for the first 5 years, we try to expand the program and expand the program, and actually, in this expansion, we have differentiated the mission of the program.

The mission of the program originally was to fight infectious AIDS and AIDS-related things in every area of the world we could find them. It was something the United States wanted to do. This bill before us doesn't do that. It takes away a lot of the mandates that we had to fight infectious HIV and AIDS in areas of necessity. Instead, it puts it into the Global AIDS Fund at the United Nations. The Global AIDS Fund at the United Nations, unfortunately, is just in the first year, and then you have unlimited sums in years 2, 3, 4, and 5. There is no transparency at all in that Global AIDS Fund at the United Nations, and we all ought to reexamine and reauthorize this bill as it was originally proposed. Then we could go on and fight AIDS around the world in countries that need our assistance.

I beg my colleagues, think it over very seriously and vote for my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to pay tribute to a friend and great American Senator who, fittingly, left us on the Fourth of July--the same day as two of our Nation's Founders: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams--at the age of 86.

In terms of a U.S. Senator, Jesse Helms was a heavyweight. Jesse Helms was relentless in his fight to defend the ideals that embody America. And no matter what policy Jesse Helms was defending during a debate, everyone could agree on one thing: you always knew where he stood and that he was a man of his word. A devoted and outspoken conservative, his principles of

small government and individual freedom served as an international microphone for American creed during the Cold War and beyond.

While Jesse's political life was open to everyone, I had the distinct honor of knowing him on a personal level. In 1998, after serving in the U.S. House of Representatives for over a decade, I came to the Senate and was quickly greeted by Senator Helms--apparently Senator Helms knew a conservative when he saw one. As someone who shared many of the same philosophical views as Jesse Helms, we would often discuss contentious issues that arose before the Senate. During these moments I realized that, behind his hard public image, Jesse Helms was one of the most compassionate and sincere men I had ever met. This affectionate and friendly attitude brought out the southern gentleman whom we all loved.

I will miss Senator Helms's political leadership, but I am happy his impact on our country lives on. Mary and I send our thoughts and prayers to his wife Dot and their family as they mourn for their loss and remember an extraordinary life.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill to rename the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site'' in the State of Kentucky as the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Historical Park.''

In 1809, Abraham Lincoln was born at Sinking Spring Farm, near Hodgenville, Kentucky, making him the first President to be born outside the original Thirteen Colonies. A century later, in 1916, the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site was established to protect over 100 acres of this enshrined area.

In 1811, the Lincoln family moved from Sinking Spring Farm to Knob Hill Farm, Kentucky, until Abraham Lincoln was nearly 8 years old. At the age of 51, Abraham Lincoln wrote, ``My earliest recollection is the Knob Creek place.'' While at Knob Hill, Abraham Lincoln learned to talk and assume household duties, helping his family gather wood and water. It was also at Knob Hill, during his boyhood years, where Lincoln first saw African Americans being taken south along the Louisville-Nashville Turnpike, part of the old Cumberland Road, to be sold as slaves. Only 50 years later, Abraham Lincoln would successfully lead his Nation through its worst crisis to abolish slavery.

There is an inspiring climb from modest beginnings to the highest office in the land, along with a relentless spirit through the most distressing time in the history of our Nation, which opens us to the life of Abraham Lincoln.

As someone who is proud to share the same birth State with Abraham Lincoln, I believe there is a credible desire in Kentucky to continue the education and promotion among our citizens, particularly the young, to understand and appreciate his righteous leadership. It is difficult to name another person who has displayed the qualities and character of the U.S. as much as Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill to rename the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site'' in the State of Kentucky as the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Historical Park.''

In 1809, Abraham Lincoln was born at Sinking Spring Farm, near Hodgenville, Kentucky, making him the first President to be born outside the original Thirteen Colonies. A century later, in 1916, the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site was established to protect over 100 acres of this enshrined area.

In 1811, the Lincoln family moved from Sinking Spring Farm to Knob Hill Farm, Kentucky, until Abraham Lincoln was nearly 8 years old. At the age of 51, Abraham Lincoln wrote, ``My earliest recollection is the Knob Creek place.'' While at Knob Hill, Abraham Lincoln learned to talk and assume household duties, helping his family gather wood and water. It was also at Knob Hill, during his boyhood years, where Lincoln first saw African Americans being taken south along the Louisville-Nashville Turnpike, part of the old Cumberland Road, to be sold as slaves. Only 50 years later, Abraham Lincoln would successfully lead his Nation through its worst crisis to abolish slavery.

There is an inspiring climb from modest beginnings to the highest office in the land, along with a relentless spirit through the most distressing time in the history of our Nation, which opens us to the life of Abraham Lincoln.

As someone who is proud to share the same birth State with Abraham Lincoln, I believe there is a credible desire in Kentucky to continue the education and promotion among our citizens, particularly the young, to understand and appreciate his righteous leadership. It is difficult to name another person who has displayed the qualities and character of the U.S. as much as Abraham Lincoln.