Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the Rabbit Hash General Store on its 175th anniversary. The Rabbit Hash General Store has continuously operated relatively unchanged in the town of Rabbit Hash, KY, since 1831.

For 175 years, the Rabbit Hash General Store has been a meeting place for the local community where citizens of Rabbit Hash have come together. The

Rabbit Hash General Store has withstood ice jams and floods from the Ohio River. The establishment shows the true fortitude of the people who live in this great river town.

The Rabbit Hash General Store has been recognized as a landmark by the Commonwealth of Kentucky since the late 1970s. Nationally, the Rabbit Hash General Store was recognized by the Department of the Interior on the National Register of Historic Places, and the town of Rabbit Hash has been recently honored by First Lady Laura Bush as a Preserve America Community.

I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating the Rabbit Hash General Store on its 175th anniversary. The Rabbit Hash General Store is a true American treasure.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to honor the life of a great American economist, Dr. Milton Friedman, who passed away today.

In his 94 years, he lead an intellectual movement at the University of Chicago focused on the failure of government intervention in the market process, wrote extensively on both economics and public policy, served on the President's Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force and the President's Commission on White House Fellows, served on President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board, and served as president of American Economic Association, the Western Economic Association, and the Mont Pelerin Society. Dr. Friedman was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the National Medal of Science, and the Nobel Prize in economic sciences.

Dr. Friedman was a prominent defender of the free market and small government. A critic of the Federal Reserve, he argued that the misguided

policies of the directors of the Federal Reserve, through contraction of the money supply, prolonged and worsened the effects of the Great Depression.

I believe Dr. Friedman's greatness was not in being an academic but in taking economic principles, and his immovable convictions, to everyday people through his books, columns, public television series, speeches, and television appearances.

To truly honor the life and achievements of Dr. Milton Friedman, we should heed the lesson he dedicated much of his life to: the free society and the free economy are both essential and inseparable. In his book ``Capitalism and Freedom,'' Friedman reminds us that, ``Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.''.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Murray State University in honor of their recognition by the annual U.S. News and World Report America's Best Colleges issue. By constantly striving for academic excellence and inspiring their students to succeed, the faculty of this institute of higher education continues to provide the tools needed to ensure a bright future for all graduates.

Every year, thousands of schools are surveyed by U.S. News, and the rankings are based on expert opinion about academic program quality and statistics that measure the quality of a school's faculty, research, and students. The information gathered is consolidated and measured to determine individual college ranking in the final report.

Murray State University has a long history of academic excellence and continues to excel in enriching the academic careers of the students who attend. The school was ranked sixth in the South as a ``Top Public'' university. In addition, Murray was ranked 15th in the South among public and private universities in the individual category of ``Best Masters Universities.'' The 10,000 students who attend this school are ensured a successful academic career with diverse degree programs and exceptional faculty support.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Murray State University on their exceptional academic accomplishments. Achievements such as this bring great pride to the entire Bluegrass State. It is a true example of Kentucky at its finest.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Dr. Frank Wiseman, who is the recipient of the 2006 U.S. Professor of the Year Award for the State of Kentucky. This is a prestigious program that honors and awards the most influential undergraduate instructors in the country.

Since 1981, the U.S. Professors of the Year program has saluted exceptional professors who have demonstrated a heightened dedication to teaching, commitment to students, and creative instructional techniques and methods. The program is sponsored by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education which collaborates with multiple higher-education associations to direct and promote the program.

As a professor of chemistry at Georgetown College in Georgetown, KY, Dr. Wiseman uses innovative teaching methods to help his students understand the complexities of chemistry, a subject many find challenging. He has developed games and animation exercises as well as a unique grading system to address the diverse needs of his students. By introducing and applying creative educating tactics along with standard science research methods to assist his students, Dr. Wiseman personifies everything an educator should strive for in their career.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Wiseman for his dedication and commitment to the education of America's future. In order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must have professors like Dr. Wiseman in our institutions of higher learning, in our communities, and in our lives. He is Kentucky at its finest.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize the outstanding military service and contributions to our country by MAJ Richard ``Rickie'' N. Hagan of Tompkinsville, KY.

Major Hagan has served his country in the Army for 27 years. He is a graduate of the Kentucky Military Academy at Fort Knox, KY and the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS. He was deployed to Iraq in July of 2004 and again in 2005 with the 377th Theater Support Command, TSC, of New Orleans, LA.

His overseas assignment included the 1st Corp Support Command, 82nd Airborne Division in Balad, Iraq. He worked as a Theater LNO--liaison officer--in Balad and in Baghdad to Multi National Forces-Iraq. As an OIC--officer in charge--of an LNO team, he

served with distinction by gathering and analyzing key intelligence information. For this service, he has been awarded the Bronze Star, The Combat Action Badge, the Meritorious Service Medal, The Iraq Campaign, the Global War on Terrorism Medal and the Global War Expeditionary Medal.

Outside of his military service, Major Hagan has continuously been an active member of his local church and community. He taught military history and the art of war to ROTC Cadets at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, TN. For 6 years he served as a city councilman in Tompkinsville, KY, was President of the Monroe County Wellness Board, and served on the YMCA and Chamber of Commerce Boards. After returning from Iraq, Major Hagan lent his services to the people of the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina.

Currently Major Hagan owns a small business and serves as an S2 intelligence officer for the 5/515 Cavalry Squadron in Fort Knox, KY.

The citizens of the State of Kentucky are proud of MAJ Rickie N. Hagan's service. They join me in thanking him for his contributions to the Army and the United States, and in wishing him all the best both now and in the future.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize and congratulate U.S. Army SGT Leigh Ann Hester, a recent recipient of the United Service Organization's `Service Member of the Year' Award. This honor is presented annually to one enlisted member from each branch of the Armed Forces and must be given to a soldier who demonstrates remarkable courage and skill, often risking their own lives to save the lives of others.

On March 20, 2005, Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester of the 617th Military Police Company, a National Guard unit out of Richmond, KY, was escorting a convoy of 26 supply vehicles when they were suddenly ambushed. According to military accounts of the firefight, about 40 insurgents attacked the convoy as it was traveling south of Baghdad, launching their assault from trenches alongside the road using rifles, machine guns, and rocketpropelled grenades. Despite being outnumbered five to one and coming under heavy enemy fire, Sergeant Hester led her team through the `kill zone' and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade-launcher rounds.

Her quick thinking saved the lives of numerous convoy members. When the conflict ended, 27 insurgents were dead, 6 were wounded, and 1 was captured.

SGT Leigh Ann Hester is the first woman to receive the USO `Service Member of the Year' Award and the first woman in over 60 years to receive the Silver Star--the Army's third highest award for valor in combat.

SGT Hester was only 23 years old at the time of this encounter. She was born in 1982 in Bowling Green, KY, later moved to Nashville, TN, and she joined the National Guard in April of 2001. As she continues the legacy of military service in her family--her uncle, Carl Sollinger, served honorably in Vietnam, and her grandfather, Oran Sollinger, was awarded a Bronze Star for his valor in World War II-- Sergeant Hester intends to continue to serve our country by beginning a career in law enforcement.

On behalf of the people of Kentucky and the Senate, I thank SGT Leigh Ann Hester for her commitment to her country, community, and fellow soldiers. It is my honor to recognize her today for her bravery and her accomplishments. My thoughts and prayers are always with her and all the men and women who protect this Nation.

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

Mr. President, I speak today on the nomination of Ms. Alice Fisher to be Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the

Department of Justice. Ms. Fisher, a native from Louisville, KY, is without question very well qualified to fill this position. As a fellow Kentuckian, it is an honor to address her nomination today, and I give her my full support.

I firmly believe that Ms. Fisher possesses the qualifications needed for this position. Her dedication and personal drive stand as an example to us all.

Ms. Fisher has served as Assistant Attorney General for over a year now. In this time she has coordinated with law enforcement agencies on a variety of issues, including antiterrorism prosecutions, public corruption cases, and child pornography cases.

Prior to this appointment, Ms. Fisher served within the Department of Justice managing both the Counterterrorism and Fraud Sections of the Department. In this time, she was responsible for coordinating the Department's national counterterrorism activities, including matters related to terrorist financing and the USA PATRIOT Act.

Throughout her tenure at the Department of Justice, Ms. Fisher has shown time and time again that she is a true leader and leads by example. Many of her colleagues testified before Congress this past year about her unwavering work habits and her true commitment to justice.

This is the type of leader that we need in our Government. I urge my colleagues across the aisle who have held up her nomination in the past to not let partisan politics get in the way this time. We need to move forward with her nomination. Not only does she have a proven record, but it was approved overwhelmingly by the Judiciary Committee, and now she deserves a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

I am confident that when she receives this vote that she will be confirmed, and I wish her continued success in her position.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of national security. Safety and security of the American people must be our Government's top priority, and we must not lose sight of the threat that faces our Nation. As we approach the anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, I wish to remind all Americans that these were acts of war against the United States.

Since then, the United States and our coalition partners have fought back.

Despite what some might say, we have seen many successes. We have dismantled al-Qaida's terrorist network in Afghanistan and helped democracy rise in its place.

We are working with our allies to secure a united, stable, and democratic Iraq.

We have led an international campaign against terrorist financing, freezing over $1.5 billion in terrorist assets in the United States alone.

Since September 11, there have been no terrorist attacks or acts on American soil. Our intelligence system has prevented 15 major terrorist plots that we know of and likely many others that are undisclosed. We have convicted over 261 defendants in terrorism-related cases and charged more than 180 others.

While we are continually working to make America safer, we still face serious threats from our enemies both at home and abroad.

To win the war against the Islamic fascists, we need an effective intelligence system that is lawful but also provides us with the necessary information to prevent attacks before they occur.

Only last month we were once again reminded that there are people out there who want to kill us and what we stand for. Fortunately, with the help of our British allies, we were able to prevent the terrorists from killing innocent civilians. These threats are real, this war is real, and the outcome will be determined by the action of our Congress and our people, and it will determine the future of our Nation.

This war is unlike any other war we have ever fought. It is both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas. This war of ideology is not an easy one and requires an advancement of freedom.

I know it is often difficult to turn on the news and hear reports from Iraq and Afghanistan and question what type of effective democracy we have in place. Have we so quickly forgotten the image 9 months ago of Iraqis waving their blue fingers in the air after they had voted in the first free elections in their nation's history? Have we forgotten the images of women and children sitting in classrooms in Afghanistan, free to learn without the fear of persecution or execution?

These are images I will never forget. They are images of democracy at work.

Just this morning we saw democracy at work when coalition forces in Iraq handed over control of the Iraqi armed forces to the Iraqi Government.

Effective democracies do take time and hard work. They cannot be created overnight, but in the end they combat the ideology of Islamic fascists.

These terrorists recognize this and because of it are willing to kill innocent people to stop the spread of freedom.

I urge my colleagues not to let them succeed in their efforts and to join me in maintaining a united front against these terrorist nations and the terrorists across the world as we press ahead with important national security legislation in the coming weeks.

While we may disagree about different policies in our war against these terrorists, we must not lose sight of what is at stake for our country. We owe it to future generations--my 35 grandkids, 4 great- grandkids, 9 children, and their spouses--we owe it to all Americans because the cost of failure is too great.

I, for one, will not back down from the challenges and look forward to working with my colleagues on this matter.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Ms. Galelyn McElroy from Prospect, KY, who has been selected to participate in the inaugural year of the American Civic Education Teacher Awards. This program is designed to promote recognition and respect for teachers of civic education across the United States.

The American Civic Education Teacher Awards are a part of the Alliance for Representative Democracy which is designed to educate Americans about the relationship between the government and the American people it serves. This program helps individuals better understand the way the government works and how it relates to them personally in their individual lives.

Ms. McElroy teaches senior legal and government services, U.S. history, and world civilization at Central High in Prospect, KY, and has been providing educational leadership in the classroom there for 13 years. She has gone above and beyond the curriculum expectations by establishing out of school mentoring experiences for her students at local law firms and legal study programs through the University of Louisville. She motivates them to think about the future by providing them with real-world experiences that partner with their civic education studies.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking Ms. McElroy for her commitment to making Kentucky a better place through educational excellence and for providing her students the motivation to succeed in life. I know I can speak for all Kentuckians when I say congratulations and thank you for everything that you do. Teachers like Ms. McElroy are an inspiration and a true example of leadership in our State.

Mr. President, today I express my interest in continuing to work on reform of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

National security is our priority, but it is vital that we not let overreaction from the Dubai Ports World controversy result in hasty legislation that will choke off foreign direct investment, or ``in- sourcing,'' which is a key contributor to the U.S. economy. In my own State, 87,000 people, or 6 percent of the entire State workforce, are employed by in-sourcing companies. These are good jobs, most frequently in manufacturing, paying 34 percent higher wages on average.

It is understandable that everyone involved with the CFIUS process today is very cautious. Consequently, there are more CFIUS filings. CFIUS is taking extra measures to ensure that every transaction is strenuously scrutinized. Moreover, CFIUS is frequently requiring security commitments from parties with regard to transactions that they would not have given a second thought before.

Without a doubt, some of this is good--the CFIUS process needs to be thorough. But extreme caution, when mixed with amendments to the Exon- Florio statute proposed by S. 3549, may result in substantial bureaucratic friction and delay for the foreign investments that pose no national security risk.

I am concerned that, in the post-Dubai Ports World environment, overburdened CFIUS agencies could be tempted to regularly seek to extend the initial 30-day review to a 60-day period for reasons unrelated to any issues presented by the transaction under review. This temptation could be even greater given the case-by-case, detailed notifications to Congress that the bill would require CFIUS personnel to provide at every stage of regulatory proceedings. Ultimately, these delays could clog up the CFIUS process, penalize foreign investors, and chill foreign investment, without actually contributing to improved national security.

I also raised this issue during Banking Committee hearings on S. 3549, which passed the Senate last week. Chairman Shelby pledged to work to address these concerns during markup of the legislation. I look forward to working with him to do so as the bill proceeds to conference.

Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about the nomination of Dr. Frederic Mishkin to be a Federal Reserve Governor and why I voted against him.

I do not think Professor Mishkin is the right choice for the Federal Reserve. I am not convinced that he will be an independent voice.

I met with Professor Mishkin a few weeks ago and found Professor Mishkin to be a pleasant and intelligent man. I do not question his integrity or his qualifications for the job. He has spent his entire career studying and writing about monetary policy and economics. And his passion is evident.

To me, the question is not about Professor Mishkin's qualifications but about the kind of Fed we need. I do not hold Professor Mishkin's long friendship with Chairman Bernanke against him, nor do I think he will have problems speaking his mind to the chairman when they disagree. My concern is that those disagreements will be few and far between, and that the chairman hand picked him for that reason.

More than that, I am afraid the Fed has too many people with the same background. Many Fed members have spent a great deal of time studying central bank actions, but too few have experience dealing with the real-world consequences of those actions. Even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke recently agreed that having people with different backgrounds on the Fed is healthy, and he stated his support for the next nominee to come from the financial services industry.

However, Professor Mishkin will only continue the trend toward an ivory-tower, academic Fed. Because of that, I voted ``no''.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I support this law and recognize its valuable contributions to our society.

Since its inception in 1965, the Voting Rights Act has successfully helped protect the right to vote for millions of U.S. citizens. This right, as outlined in the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, is fundamental to our

Country's foundation. It is the lifeblood of our democracy. The very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the electoral process.

We must ensure that when citizens choose to go to the polls that they do not face obstacles created to disenfranchise them. Every U.S. citizen, regardless of race or gender, should have opportunity to cast their vote without fear of discrimination.

This has not always been the case. Our Nation's history can provide examples where the person's right to vote has been impeded whether it be through literacy tests or poll taxes. This is unacceptable and is a powerful reminder of the hardships this Nation has experienced. The Voting Rights Act has provided protection to minority communities that may fall victim to some of those impediments, or even worse, to threats or intimidation during the electoral process.

I believe the Voting Rights Act was a good idea and necessary in 1965. I also believe we have come a long way since 1965 and would like to recognize the many changes and progress made all across the Country. I firmly believe this progress will only continue to grow.

I come from a State that is committed to civil rights, and I believe that our Forefathers said it best that we are one Nation, undivided, with liberty and justice for all. I look forward to seeing this commitment to justice renewed today as we reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Mr. President, I am confident that the Voting Rights Act will be reauthorized today and urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, today I congratulate the Owensboro Catholic Elementary sixth grade Future Problem Solving Team of Owensboro, KY. The Future Problem Solving Team recently earned the State championship in their division, placing first out of about 50 teams. They went on to compete at the international conference in Colorado and placed 22nd out of 55 teams.

The Future Problem Solving Program is a nationally recognized, award- winning program that seeks to increase awareness for the future and encourage creativity in students of all ages.

Over 50,000 students participate in the competitive components associated with future problem solving and community problem solving. Of these, less than 3 percent earn an invitation to the prestigious international event.

I congratulate the Owensboro Catholic Elementary sixth grade Future Problem Solving Team for their achievement. The administrators, teachers, parents, and students of this team are an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky. I look forward to all that the Future Problem Solving Team accomplishes in the future.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate today to speak on the three bills related to stem cell research. One of these bills is wrong, but I believe that the other two are worthy pieces of legislation.

Stem cell research is a controversial issue in the medical, scientific, and religious communities, as well as in Congress. I am not opposed to stem cell research; however, I am 100 percent opposed to embryonic stem cell research. This is why I oppose H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill would remove all current protections against the destructive use of embryos for harvesting stem cells. I firmly believe it is wrong to take these sources of life and destroy them, even if it is for a benign purpose such as medical research.

Current Federal policy on stem cell research developed out of a compromise between proponents of research and those who endeavor to protect life at its earliest stages, brokered by President Bush. This is the first administration to allow Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Today's policy allows Federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell lines that were in existence prior to August 9, 2001.

As an opponent of the destruction of human embryos, I believed the Bush administration's decision to allow the embryonic stem cell research was misguided. H.R. 810 goes even further than the current policy. It cancels the protections of the 2001 cutoff for research by allowing research of all embryonic stem cells created from in vitro fertilization treatments. This legislation would move us in the wrong direction on this issue.

Some have said that these excess embryos which would be used for research would be destroyed anyway. However, I do not think this makes ethical sense. Just because these budding lives will not survive does not mean that we should ghoulishly conduct experiments on them.

I believe there is a disconnect between what many Americans believe about this issue and what the facts are. For one, we are debating the use of Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. We are not debating the legality of embryonic stem cell research. Any company or organization that wants to conduct or fund embryonic stem cell research may do so. I just do not think taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

Also, there are different kinds of stem cells. Adult stem cells, such as those derived from cord blood tissue, do not require the destruction of a human embryo. Why walk down such a dangerous ethical path when there is no need to do so? These adult stem cells have proven very effective in combating several serious conditions, such as diabetes and spinal cord injuries, among others.

This leads me to another point. We have seen the benefits that come from adult stem cell research. However, we have yet to see any tangible benefits from any embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists agree that these kinds of stem cells might--I say ``might''--be able to help fight disease someday, but it has not happened yet. We are talking about ending human life when no lives have been saved yet. Who knows how many human embryos we will have to destroy before any tangible progress is made.

That being said, I am pleased to see that the Senate is considering S. 2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. This bill could very well remove the most contentious issues of this debate. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning that they could potentially have a wide variety of uses. It is this quality that drives the supporters of embryonic stem cell research to their position. However, great strides have been made in deriving pluripotent stem cells from sources that do not destroy embryos.

S. 2754 would authorize Federal funding to conduct research on the creation of nonembryonic pluripotent stem cells. If successful, we would be able to end this debate by funding a morally acceptable replacement for research involving human embryo destruction. I urge the Senate to adopt this measure.

The final bill the Senate is debating on the subject is S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. I fully support passage of this legislation. This bill would ban research from fetal farms where human embryos are implanted in nonhuman uteruses. It would also ban embryos from human pregnancies created specifically for research.

Most people would find these requirements to be self-evident. However, some groups have said this is unnecessary because research already follows ethical guidelines that forbid this. That may be the case, but I believe we should take these ethical guidelines and give them the force of law to prevent the possibility of such gruesome methods ever being used by researchers. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

I do not like to see people with medical conditions suffer. However, I believe many advocates of embryonic stem cell research are playing on the hopes and griefs of many people whose lives are touched by illness. We are at an ethical crossroads with this issue. We must stay true to our values of respecting life. It seems foolish to stubbornly barrel ahead with Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research when, with a small bit of patience, we can put aside the moral and ethical concerns and proceed down a path we can all agree upon.

In closing, I firmly believe we cannot create life and then destroy it in order

to save another life. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and to support S. 2754 and S. 3504.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.