Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate three Kentucky organizations: Pendleton County Education Foundation in Falmouth; Healthy Schools Inc. in Louisville; and Paducah Park Services. These three organizations have recently been named Champions for Healthy Kids winners.

Champions for Healthy Kids is a long-term grants program designed to instill good nutrition and fitness habits among our youth. The program calls on community groups to champion the health of our young people by developing innovative fitness and nutrition programs that can have a lifelong impact.

I congratulate Pendleton County Education Foundation, Healthy Schools Inc., and Paducah Park Services for their achievements. Everyone involved in these organizations are an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky. I look forward to all that these organizations accomplish in the future.

I would like to explain my opposition to amendment No. 4548 to the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill. This amendment would prohibit the U.S. Customs and Border Protection from preventing an individual not in the business of importing prescription drugs from importing an FDA-approved prescription drug. I oppose allowing uninspected pharmaceuticals to be imported into the country.

I understand some prescription drugs are expensive, and many Americans struggle to afford their medications. That is why Congress passed a bill in 2003 to create a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. The drug program has greatly reduced the amount seniors spend on prescription drugs. This Medicare prescription drug bill also includes several provisions aimed at reducing the cost of pharmaceuticals, specifically by getting generic drugs to the market faster. These are important changes aimed at reducing costs for everyone.

I have concerns about the safety of bringing prescription drugs into the United States from other countries without meeting the safety criteria currently in law. Under the current system, Americans can feel secure when they purchase pharmaceuticals in this country. They know the pills they are taking are safe and effective and that they have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which uses some of the highest approval standards in the world. Congress should not put the safety of our pharmaceutical supply in the hands of a foreign government which may not recognize counterfeit or expired medicines or may not have the same safety standards that we do. The last thing we want to do is to undermine the integrity of our drug supply.

In fact, in December of 2005, a Food and Drug Administration operation found that nearly half of the imported drugs FDA intercepted from four selected countries were shipped to fill orders that consumers believed they were placing with ``Canadian'' pharmacies. Of the drugs being promoted as ``Canadian,'' based on accompanying documentation, 85 percent actually came from 27 countries around the globe. A number of these products also were found to be counterfeit.

I believe this amendment will put our Nation's drug supply at risk and it is not even necessary. As this year goes on, more and more seniors are getting excellent and affordable coverage under the new prescription drug plan that we passed in 2003, which means allowing potentially unsafe drugs into our country is an unnecessary risk that we do not need to take.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide for relief from duties on the import of certain parts of motor vehicles. It is my intention that this duty suspension bill will be considered for inclusion in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, MTB, that the Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider this year.

As the Members of the Senate are aware, Congress on occasion passes a bill, known as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill or MTB, as a vehicle for enacting pending noncontroversial duty suspensions. The rules for the inclusion of a duty suspension in the MTB are straight forward. First and foremost, in order to be included in the MTB, a bill must be noncontroversial. A bill will be controversial if it is objected to by a domestic producer of the product for which the duty reduction is being sought. Secondly, the cost for each bill must amount to less than $500,000 of lost revenue per year.

As my colleagues are aware, the MTB provides an opportunity to temporarily eliminate or reduce duties on narrowly defined products that are imported into the United States because there is not available domestic source for the products. These duty suspensions reduce input costs for U.S. businesses and thus ultimately increase the competitiveness of their products.

I have been approached by a number of manufacturers in Kentucky that use imported inputs while making their products. These manufacturers have represented to me that, to their knowledge, there currently exists no American-made source for these inputs.

In an effort to assist these Kentucky manufacturers, I have introduced in the past month a number of these duty suspension bills so that the items they address will be able to be considered for inclusion in the MTB prepared by the Senate Finance Committee.

My intention in introducing these bills is to begin the process of public comment and technical analysis by the International Trade Commission, ITC, on the items addressed by the bills. During this review, the ITC will determine which of these bills are necessary and meet the selection criteria. My support for a duty suspension for the items is contingent on a determination by the ITC analysts that the items in question are proper candidates for inclusion in the noncontroversial MTB.

I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Baucus and my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee as the process for assembling a final MTB package continues.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide for relief from duties on the import of certain parts of motor vehicles. It is my intention that this duty suspension bill will be considered for inclusion in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, MTB, that the Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider this year.

As the Members of the Senate are aware, Congress on occasion passes a bill, known as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill or MTB, as a vehicle for enacting pending noncontroversial duty suspensions. The rules for the inclusion of a duty suspension in the MTB are straight forward. First and foremost, in order to be included in the MTB, a bill must be noncontroversial. A bill will be controversial if it is objected to by a domestic producer of the product for which the duty reduction is being sought. Secondly, the cost for each bill must amount to less than $500,000 of lost revenue per year.

As my colleagues are aware, the MTB provides an opportunity to temporarily eliminate or reduce duties on narrowly defined products that are imported into the United States because there is not available domestic source for the products. These duty suspensions reduce input costs for U.S. businesses and thus ultimately increase the competitiveness of their products.

I have been approached by a number of manufacturers in Kentucky that use imported inputs while making their products. These manufacturers have represented to me that, to their knowledge, there currently exists no American-made source for these inputs.

In an effort to assist these Kentucky manufacturers, I have introduced in the past month a number of these duty suspension bills so that the items they address will be able to be considered for inclusion in the MTB prepared by the Senate Finance Committee.

My intention in introducing these bills is to begin the process of public comment and technical analysis by the International Trade Commission, ITC, on the items addressed by the bills. During this review, the ITC will determine which of these bills are necessary and meet the selection criteria. My support for a duty suspension for the items is contingent on a determination by the ITC analysts that the items in question are proper candidates for inclusion in the noncontroversial MTB.

I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Baucus and my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee as the process for assembling a final MTB package continues.

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

But there is time allocated presently.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 12, the flag protection constitutional amendment. It is fitting for the Senate to address this issue on the eve of the Nation's most celebrated national holiday, the Fourth of July.

For over 200 years, from the time of the Revolutionary War to this very moment, the American flag has served as the most unifying and visible sign of our great Nation. It is a symbol that knows no particular political affiliation or ideology. It is a symbol that has many different meanings for many different people. And, most importantly, it is a symbol of our Nation's greatest freedom that so many men and women in our Armed Forces have and continue to sacrifice to protect.

I believe it is an insult to those sacrifices to stand idly by while the flag is desecrated. It is time to show the same honor to our flag that we do to those who have sacrificed to protect it. I believe we owe it to our Old Glory, and that is why I am here today to speak in support of the constitutional amendment to protect our flag.

This amendment is necessary to restore protections for the flag that the Supreme Court wiped away in 1989, ruling in Texas v. Johnson. In that 5-to-4 ruling, the Court set aside longstanding national and State laws that protected our flag and recognized and honored its place in American society.

Congress quickly acted in response to that ruling through the passage of the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Supreme Court, however, was also quick to act. In another 5-to-4 decision, in 1990, the Court again found that flag protections were inconsistent with their view of the rights protected by the first amendment.

But the Court is once again out of touch with America. Its view that flag burning should be protected is not shared by many Americans. In fact, the vast majority of Americans think just the opposite. Nationwide, over 70 percent of Americans think it is important for us to pass a law to protect the flag. And in my State, that number is even higher--87 percent think that it is important that we act now to protect the flag.

It is time that we turn this issue back to the people. The Constitution provides an amending process for a reason. The bar to enact a constitutional amendment is high, requiring a two-thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Likewise, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the States. But in the rare instance when those super-majorities can be assembled, the Framers gave us away to change the Constitution and for the people's voice to be heard. That is just what we should and must do.

Since the Supreme Court's rulings, the House of Representatives passed a flag protection amendment five times--most recently last year. The Senate has also taken up the issue, but unfortunately failed to get the necessary 67 votes. By all accounts, this time the Senate is within one vote of adopting the amendment and sending it to the States for ratification.

I have no doubt that should the Senate pass this resolution it would be ratified by the States. While this issue is currently being debated at the national level, States have been quick to show their overwhelming support for such a resolution. Since 1989, all 50 States have enacted resolutions asking Congress to pass a flag protection amendment.

Mr. President, we owe it to Old Glory to protect each and everyone of it stars and stripes.

Two weeks ago, I had the honor of introducing a man who fought to rescue Old Glory from would-be flag-burners. Rick Monday, a former center fielder for the Chicago Cubs and a Marine Corps Reservist, rescued the American flag from being burnt by two protestors during a 1976 baseball game between the Cubs and the Dodgers.

Monday was playing center field for the Cubs that day, when suddenly in the 4th inning two protesters ran onto the outfield grass carrying the American flag. These two individuals then proceeded to spread the flag on the ground, dousing it with lighter fluid and pulling out matches to light it on fire. But before they could act, Monday dashed from his position swiping the flag right out from under their noses to the sound of thunderous cheers from the crowd.

Following Monday's patriotic actions those in attendance that day burst into a chorus of God Bless America. Whether you are a player or a fan, we all have our favorite memories from America's past time, but few of those moments compare to Monday's act of patriotism. It is arguably one of the greatest moments the game has ever seen. In fact, the Baseball Hall of Fame recognized it as one of the 100 Classic Moments in the history of baseball. Monday, a true American Patriot, fought to stop what he knew was wrong in 1976 and is still wrong today.

Some may argue that burning the flag is a form of speech. I do not agree with those people. In the 1989 flag burning case Texas v. Johnson, late Chief Justice William Rehnquist said it well in his dissent when he said that flag burning is more like a grunt or roar designed to antagonize others than it is a form of speech.

Well, Mr. President, it is time that this body acted to protect Old Glory from those who wish to indulge in its desecration. We owe it to our past, present and future generations. And ultimately, we owe it to the brave men and women who sacrifice so much to protect us at home and abroad.

Each and everyone of us should recognize what a privilege it is to live under the Stars and Stripes. And like Monday, we should do everything we can to protect and honor our flag. After all, what it represents is the very reason our troops are putting their lives on the line right now in the war on terror. When you disrespect the flag you are disrespecting our men and women in uniform.

Mr. President, on the eve our Nation's most important national holiday, the Fourth of July, I urge my colleagues to protect our Nation's great flag.

I believe it is our duty as public servants to protect one of our Nation's greatest symbols of freedom--Old Glory.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Beverly McDavid, a teacher from Elliott County High School in Sandy Hook, KY, who is a recipient of the 2006 Disney Teacher Award. Ms. McDavid is being recognized for her commitment to middle school science education. Her ability to inspire her students with creative thinking and innovative teaching methods has resulted in her achieving this prestigious honor.

The Disney Teacher Awards celebrate teachers that enlighten the lives of children by using creativity in the classroom to encourage them to achieve more then they ever thought possible. Award winners are chosen by their peers, which consist of leading educational associations from around the United States and former Disney Teacher Honorees.

Ms. McDavid brings a unique educational experience to her classroom by encouraging free thinking from her students. She also uses various educational strategies to reach out to the diverse learning needs of her students and encourages them to succeed. Her relentless dedication has proven her a deserving recipient of this outstanding award.

I congratulate Ms. McDavid on being a recipient of the Disney Teacher Award. Her love of teaching and devotion to her students make her an example to all the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Dr. John Strosnider of Pikeville, KY, for his induction as the 110th president of the American Osteopathic Association, AOA. His steadfast support reinforces his organization's honorable goal of promoting osteopathic medicine, ensuring quality education and training programs, and preserving basic osteopathic principles.

Dr. Strosnider will lead 56,000 osteopathic physicians and the AOA, an association organized to advance the philosophy and practice of osteopathic medicine by promoting excellence in education, research and the delivery of quality and cost-effective healthcare in a distinct, unified profession.

Dr. Strosnider has been a member of the AOA since 1971 and has served on the board of trustees since 1992. During this time he has served on the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure and the Get Healthy Kentucky Board. In addition to his leadership roles with the AOA, Dr. Strosnider has served as a member of the Association of Osteopathic Medical Directors and Educators; the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine; the Medical Review Consultants Board of Directors; and the Kentucky Osteopathic Medical Association, KOMA, and was a past president of the Missouri Association of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, MAOPS.

Throughout his career, Dr. Strosnider has received numerous honors including the 2005 KOMA Physician of the Year Award and the 1993 MAOPS Medallion Award.

In September of 1996 Dr. Strosnider was appointed as the founding dean of the Pikeville College School of Osteopathic Medicine. The Pikeville College is the 19th college of osteopathic medicine in the United States. Its objective is to improve the delivery of healthcare to the people in the underserved areas of Appalachia. I have been very impressed with the progress the college has made in expanding access to healthcare in eastern Kentucky.

I thank Dr. Strosnider for his dedication and commitment to osteopathy and congratulate him on his new position. His devotion to medicine serves as an example to all citizens of the Commonwealth.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. I will not require 15 minutes, but I do have some things to say about the nominee. I just want to speak for a few minutes to explain why I am going to vote no on the nomination of Donald Kohn to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.

I am going to vote against Dr. Kohn because I do not think he has been an independent voice at the Fed. Since he joined the Fed in 2002 as a member, he has agreed with all of the interest rate decisions that Chairman Bernanke and former Chairman Greenspan advanced. And because of recent statements, some as recently as Friday, I am convinced he is not going to speak up against yet another decision to hike interest rates when the Fed open market committee meets at the end of this month.

Interest rate and inflation fears caused by statements from the Fed members have put our stock markets into free fall. Ever since the last Fed hike, stock values have been plummeting. A lot of value has been destroyed. Even counting a few good days last week, most of the major indexes are, at best, flat for 2006, despite a great runup in the first 4 months of the year. Individual investors and pension funds have lost billions of dollars, investors' confidence is shaken, and for what? Inflation data is at worst mixed. I certainly do not believe it is out of control. Oil and commodity prices have fallen significantly lately. Consumer spending is still strong.

Former Fed Chairman Greenspan said recently that the economy has been able to handle the high gasoline prices. And even Chairman Bernanke admitted last week that the signs of inflation have weakened.

But the Fed keeps raising interest rates, and its members keep talking like another rate increase is coming, even after the June meeting. Inflation indicators talked about by Fed members look at what has been, not what is coming. And interest rate increases take time to impact the economy. But the Fed has not taken a break in raising rates for over 2 years--2 years. The Fed has a bad record of overshooting, and I am afraid they will overshoot this time if they have not already done so.

We all know that interest rate hikes will slow the economy. I just hope that it won't kill it. We need the Fed to stop the madness. I am not convinced that Dr. Kohn will be a voice to stop the madness sooner rather than later. Because I am not convinced Dr. Kohn will be the right voice at the Fed or an independent voice as Vice Chairman, I will vote no.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the vote occurs on Dr. Kohn's nomination, the Record reflect that I voted no.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong favor of abolishing one of the most unjustified taxes we have in America today: the death tax. Americans should not have to talk to their undertaker and their tax man on the same day. Small businesses and family farms should not be forced to close down in order to pay the Government money because a loved one has passed away. Unfortunately, I see this happening when I travel back to Kentucky every week. We are not looking out for our economy or our very own people when we charge them for inheriting the American dream.

The mom and pop diner on the corner of our town squares and third- generation farms in our rural areas are being unduly burdened by a repressive Tax Code. In fact, many are forced to close their doors or sell out, just so they can afford what the Government says they owe.

America's prosperity was created by our entrepreneurial spirit, but today it is estimated that 70 percent of all businesses never make it past the first generation, while 87 percent do not make it to the third generation, and only 1 percent make it to the fourth generation. Why? One of the big reasons is the burden of the death tax.

We call this tax the death tax not only because of the time that it strikes often unsuspecting families but also because it kills American businesses and jobs. The ridiculous complexities of the death tax actually favor individuals whose tax lawyers and accountants plan for years to shield money from estate taxation. The real people who are affected by the estate tax are often small businesses and farms, when death catches them unprepared.

The estate tax is equal to an unfair double tax on savings and investment. In short, it is a tax on the American dream, the dream that if you work hard and save money you can leave your children with the opportunity to live a happier and more prosperous life than you yourself did.

Estate taxes give taxpayers an incentive to save less and spend more. We all know that is not what we need in today's economy. The Commerce Department reported recently that Americans' personal savings fell into negative territory at minus \1/2\ percent last year. We ought to be doing all we can to encourage savings, not to penalize people for it. We should give grandparents and parents an incentive to leave their children with the fruits of their lifelong labors. It is time for the Senate to wake up and realize the death tax, which raises only a very small portion of our revenue, is ready for its own death.

Poll after poll has shown us that this is what the American people want us to do. Please, let us join the House of Representatives in repealing this unneeded, burdensome tax.

Distinguished colleagues, I urge you to join me in supporting the repeal of the death tax today. The time for talk is over. Today is the time to take an action that can really make a difference. This is the only way we can ensure that our fellow citizens experience the American dream, not the American nightmare. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of cloture.

I yield the floor.

I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coal-to- Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2006. Last month, I chaired an Energy Committee hearing on this promising technology that can turn coal into diesel fuel. Working with industry and the scientific community, I have put together a comprehensive piece of legislation with the goal of providing the right combination of incentives to create a backbone of coal-to-liquids infrastructure in the United States.

The first step is for the Department of Energy to help with planning these large-scale coal-to-liquids plants. This legislation will create a loan program where the private sector can obtain a loan of up to $20 million, matched dollar-for-dollar by non-federal money, to pay for the significant costs of planning, permitting and engineering a coal-to- liquid facility. This program will have minimal cost to the taxpayers as these loans will be repaid, within 5 years, after a planned plant is financed. The federal government will also provide loan guarantees for coal-to-liquids facilities by expanding the program authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

It is not enough to simply help engineer plants or provide a loan guarantee--there must be an economic motivation for investors to put up the $1 to $2 billion it costs to build a large-scale coal-to-liquids plant. To that end, this bill will create a separate investment tax credit for coal-to-liquids technology. It will also extend the fuel tax credit for coal-to-liquids fuels until 2020. The combination of these incentives will be the one-two punch needed to jumpstart investment in this marketplace. This package of incentives is essential to developing a domestic coal-to-liquid fuels market.

With this domestically produced fuel from coal, we can bring down gas prices and be closer to energy independence. And these two goals, which are essential to our national security, bring me to the last part of this legislation. The Department of Defense consumes large amounts of fuel--for our airplanes, ships and tanks--and nearly all of it is based on petroleum and too much of it comes from the Middle East. It is time we ensure that our military has a safe, domestic source of transportation fuel. My legislation will authorize funding for the continued testing and evaluation of coal-to-liquid fuels by the military. It includes authorization to engage in long-term contracts with producers to ensure a stable, domestic fuel for our armed forces. This bill also authorizes the Department of Energy and Department of Defense to evaluate coal-to-liquids fuels for storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and allows the government to turn to this domestic source of fuel for filling the reserve.

With this legislation America can take a huge step toward energy independence. My bill will foster a domestic marketplace for coal-to- liquids fuels, bring down gasoline costs and provide our military with a secure, domestic fuel source. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coal-to- Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2006. Last month, I chaired an Energy Committee hearing on this promising technology that can turn coal into diesel fuel. Working with industry and the scientific community, I have put together a comprehensive piece of legislation with the goal of providing the right combination of incentives to create a backbone of coal-to-liquids infrastructure in the United States.

The first step is for the Department of Energy to help with planning these large-scale coal-to-liquids plants. This legislation will create a loan program where the private sector can obtain a loan of up to $20 million, matched dollar-for-dollar by non-federal money, to pay for the significant costs of planning, permitting and engineering a coal-to- liquid facility. This program will have minimal cost to the taxpayers as these loans will be repaid, within 5 years, after a planned plant is financed. The federal government will also provide loan guarantees for coal-to-liquids facilities by expanding the program authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

It is not enough to simply help engineer plants or provide a loan guarantee--there must be an economic motivation for investors to put up the $1 to $2 billion it costs to build a large-scale coal-to-liquids plant. To that end, this bill will create a separate investment tax credit for coal-to-liquids technology. It will also extend the fuel tax credit for coal-to-liquids fuels until 2020. The combination of these incentives will be the one-two punch needed to jumpstart investment in this marketplace. This package of incentives is essential to developing a domestic coal-to-liquid fuels market.

With this domestically produced fuel from coal, we can bring down gas prices and be closer to energy independence. And these two goals, which are essential to our national security, bring me to the last part of this legislation. The Department of Defense consumes large amounts of fuel--for our airplanes, ships and tanks--and nearly all of it is based on petroleum and too much of it comes from the Middle East. It is time we ensure that our military has a safe, domestic source of transportation fuel. My legislation will authorize funding for the continued testing and evaluation of coal-to-liquid fuels by the military. It includes authorization to engage in long-term contracts with producers to ensure a stable, domestic fuel for our armed forces. This bill also authorizes the Department of Energy and Department of Defense to evaluate coal-to-liquids fuels for storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and allows the government to turn to this domestic source of fuel for filling the reserve.

With this legislation America can take a huge step toward energy independence. My bill will foster a domestic marketplace for coal-to- liquids fuels, bring down gasoline costs and provide our military with a secure, domestic fuel source. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about why I will vote against the immigration reform bill now before the Senate.

This is the worst piece of legislation that I have seen in my 20 years in Congress. It grants amnesty to 11 million or more illegal immigrants. It puts American workers at risk. It does little to enforce our immigration laws in the interior of the country, and worst of all, it does not even secure our border. It ignores the will of the majority of the American people. I cannot vote for such a dangerous bill.

In 1986, the year before I first joined the House of Representatives, Congress passed the immigration reform bill that got us into the situation we are in now. Ed Meese, who was President Reagan's Attorney General at the time, called it what it was--an amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens. Unfortunately, after that amnesty little attention was paid to securing our borders and interior enforcement, and the illegal immigrant population grew to over 11 million.

The 1986 amnesty was a signal to illegal immigrants that if they came here and kept their heads down, eventually they would have their crimes forgiven. The amnesty told them there was no reason to wait in line, no reason to follow our laws, just sneak into the United States, do not get caught, and eventually Congress would make them a citizen.

Well, that is exactly what happened. Earlier this week, former Attorney General Meese pointed out that Congress did not learn the lesson of 1986 and we are poised to repeat that mistake by passing a new amnesty. I suspect that 20 years from now a future Congress will talk about yet another amnesty.

A few weeks ago I came to the floor to talk about what kind of immigration reform I support. I support, first and foremost, securing our borders. If we cannot control our borders, we might as well give up on stopping the next terrorist attack.

I support strong enforcement of our immigration laws inside the country. That means punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants. We must provide employers the tools they need to make sure workers are legal and hold them responsible when they turn a blind eye to who they are hiring.

I support an immigration reform bill that protects American workers. That means a temporary worker program for when we need more workers, such as in our current rapidly expanding economy. But any worker program must make sure Americans are not being denied jobs in favor of cheap foreign labor. If there is a real need we should fill it, but foreign labor should never be a substitute for American workers.

Finally, I support continuing our long tradition of welcoming new immigrants to America. Within reasonable limits, we should continue to welcome people from around the world who want to become Americans. We should not lock the doors to new immigrants, but anyone who wants to become an American must learn our language and assimilate into our society.

Because this bill does not follow those principles, I will not support it. The bill will not secure our border. It ties the hands of law enforcement inside the country to catch illegal immigrants. It is an amnesty for illegal immigrants that not only puts them ahead of the millions who are already waiting in line, but in some ways it also treats them better than American workers. Finally, the bill does not protect American jobs, instead it encourages businesses to use cheap foreign labor.

I have heard a lot of talk the last few weeks from my colleagues supporting this bill that say we must choose from either blanket amnesty or mass deportation. That is wrong. If we passed a real border security bill with tough interior enforcement, the illegal population would shrink through attrition; in other words, the illegal immigrants would deport themselves. After we secure our borders, we can put in place a temporary worker program that protects American workers.

But that is not the path the Senate will choose today. I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives will stay strong with their bill when we get to conference. The other body passed a strong bill that would make this country safer. That bill is not an amnesty bill. It will make sure we get our border under control before opening the door to millions of temporary workers.

Again, Mr. President, I cannot support this bill. It is the worst legislation I have ever had to vote on, and I will vote against it when the roll is called. I put securing our borders ahead of amnesty, and I am confident the American people do too.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a number of bills to provide for relief from duties. It is my intention that some or all of these duty suspension bills will eventually be included in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, MTB, that the Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider this year.

As the members of the Senate are aware, Congress on occasion passes a bill, known as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill or MTB, as a vehicle for enacting pending non-controversial duty suspensions. The rules for the inclusion of a duty suspension in the MTB are straight forward. First and foremost, in order to be included in the MTB, a bill must be non- controversial. A bill will be controversial if it is objected to by a domestic producer of the product for which the duty reduction is being sought. Secondly, the cost for each bill must amount to less than $500,000 of lost revenue per year.

As my colleagues are aware, the MTB provides an opportunity to temporarily eliminate or reduce duties on narrowly defined products that are imported into the United States because there is not available domestic source for the products. These duty suspensions reduce input costs for U.S. businesses and thus ultimately increase the competitiveness of their products.

I have been approached by a number of manufacturers in Kentucky that use imported inputs while making their products. These manufacturers have represented to me that, to their knowledge, there currently exists no American-made source for these inputs.

In an effort to assist these Kentucky manufacturers, I am introducing these duty suspension bills so that the items they address will be able to be considered for inclusion in the MTB prepared by the Senate Finance Committee.

My intention in introducing these bills is to begin the process of public comment and technical analysis by the International Trade Commission (ITC) on the items addressed by the bills. During this review, the ITC will determine which of these bills are necessary and meet the selection criteria. My support for a duty suspension for the items is contingent on a determination by the ITC analysts that the items in question are proper candidates for inclusion in the non- controversial MTB.

I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Baucus and my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee as the process for assembling a final MTB package continues.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Sandy Buchanan of Cold Spring, KY, for her 41 years of service and devotion to the Disabled American Veterans. Her steadfast support reinforces her organization's honorable goal of building better lives for America's disabled veterans and their families.

The Disabled American Veterans is a service organization for the brave men and women who have become sick and disabled as a result of wartime military service. Founded in 1920, this organization serves veterans who have fought in combat since World War I.

Ms. Buchanan began work as a keypunch operator for the Disabled American Veterans on October 12, 1964. In her four decades of service, she has helped the organization grow from supporting 178,864 members to representing 1.3 million members. Over the years, she has risen to the position of executive assistant at the National Headquarters in Cold Spring, KY. During her tenure, Ms. Buchanan has served combat veterans of every war and conflict since World War I.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking Ms. Buchanan for her dedication and commitment to the Disabled American Veterans. Her devotion to our Nation's combat heroes serves as an example to all citizens of the Commonwealth.