Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my colleague from Kentucky, the senior Senator, Mitch McConnell.

Today is somewhat of a historic occasion for my friend, this Senate, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

As of yesterday, our colleague, Mitch McConnell, became the longest serving Republican Senator in Kentucky history. He surpassed the service of the legendary Senator from Somerset, John Sherman Cooper.

For over 20 years now--7,481 days, to be exact--Mitch has honorably served Kentucky.

In all that time, Kentuckians have been getting solid leadership and representation here in the Senate. Mitch is an effective and devoted legislator working hard on behalf of the bluegrass State. I could not have had a better partner in my fight for Kentucky.

Some of my friends may not know what kind of role Mitch has played in Kentucky's political scene. He has helped lead the fight to build the thriving, vigorous, two-party political system that Kentucky enjoys today.

Mitch McConnell helped set the growth of Louisville--home of the Kentucky Derby--in motion over 20 years ago when he served as judge- executive of Jefferson County. Many of the initiatives he launched then to expand the city's economic growth and prestige have since borne fruit many times over.

In 1984, Judge McConnell made history with his election to the Senate. He was the only Republican to defeat an incumbent Democratic Senator anywhere in the country. He was the first Republican to be elected statewide in Kentucky since 1968.

For a lot of people, that would have been enough. But not for Mitch. Thanks to him, 1984 was not just one election for one man. It was the beginning of an emerging and competitive two-party system in Kentucky.

Once upon a time, most Kentucky Republican organizations could hold their meetings in phone booths. I remember those days vividly and somewhat fondly because in the early 1980s, I was just one of nine Republicans in the Kentucky State Senate.

I bet that sounds good to some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, but in all seriousness, one-party rule is not good for anyone, including the party in power. If parties do not have to compete to sell their ideas, they stop coming up with new ideas and they get lazy. The people they serve are left without a voice because the people in power have no incentive to listen. I believe that to be true no matter which party is in power.

In the eighties, Senator McConnell saw us all laboring under one- party rule and decided to do something about it. He helped recruit candidates to run, and he never shied away from explaining the Republican message every where he went. And he did it all with his trademark-focused determination.

Many of my colleagues know that once Mitch sets his sights on something, no one will outwork or outthink him in pursuit of his goal.

I am a witness to this. I first ran for the Congress in 1986, and I won. At that point, and in getting to know Mitch much better, it was already clear that Mitch had goals for Kentucky's Republican Party.

After helping to lay the groundwork for many years, these goals began to pay off. In 1994, we saw two Republicans--Ron Lewis and Ed Whitfield--win seats in the U.S. House of Representatives that had been held by Democrats for years. In 1996, Congresswoman Anne Northup won another seat in Louisville held by a Democrat. Congressman Ernie Fletcher joined them in 1998, and Congressman Geoff Davis, last year, won back my old fourth district House seat. Today, Kentucky sends a largely Republican delegation to Congress, and my colleague worked hard to help make that happen.

When I decided to run for the U.S. Senate in 1998, and when I ran for reelection in 2004, Mitch was there for me. His help was phenomenal and said so much about our friendship.

Mitch also helped influence Kentucky's State government. For decades, one party had a lock on the statehouse and the Governor's mansion, but that is not true today. Republicans gained control of the Kentucky Senate in 1999, and in 2003, they captured the Governor's mansion. I know Mitch was involved in these races to help build a viable two-party system in Kentucky.

Mitch has been a great friend in the Senate. In fact, he is my best friend in this body. But he has also been a great friend to the good folks of our Commonwealth over the last 20 years.

Last year, Mitch and I worked hard in the Senate on the passage of a tobacco buyout for our Kentucky tobacco farmers. This is one of the most significant events in the agricultural history of Kentucky. That tobacco buyout literally saved the livelihood of tens of thousands of Kentucky tobacco farmers, their families, and the communities in which they live. That old quota system that dictated to the farmers how much tobacco they could sell was broken. My office and Senator McConnell received thousands of letters and phone calls from Kentuckians pleading for help. We answered their pleas and, Mitch, our Senate majority whip, had a major role in pushing this ball over the goal line.

Throughout my service in the Senate, I could not have asked for a better comrade in arms than Mitch McConnell. Mitch, is a fighter. When he is on your side, you feel unstoppable. When he is not, you know you have an uphill battle to fight. But he is always fighting for what he believes in and what is right. Kentucky is lucky to have him, and so is this Senate.

Mitch, I appreciate you, and I am proud to call you my best friend in the Senate. Congratulations on your milestone. You have my vote for Kentucky's political hall of fame.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the Senate will conduct a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with the first hour under the control of the majority and the second under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. Under a previous agreement, all amendments to the bill must be offered during today's session. The majority leader announced on Friday that there will be no rollcall votes today, but Senators who have amendments to the bill should make themselves available to offer and debate their amendments.

I also remind my colleagues that the next vote will occur tomorrow morning, shortly before 10 a.m. That vote will be on the passage of H.R. 6, the Energy bill. Following disposition of the Energy bill, the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill, and we will vote on previously offered amendments to the Interior appropriations bill tomorrow.

In addition to the vote on passage of the Energy bill and completing work on the Interior appropriations bill, the Senate will act on any additional appropriations measures, including the Homeland Security appropriations bill and other legislative or executive items. This is the last week of the session before the July 4 recess and Senators should expect a busy week with votes throughout.

Mr. President, today I rise to speak about our operation at Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba. There is so much information out there that is untrue, it must be corrected. Yesterday, I went to Guantanamo Bay with my colleagues, Senator Crapo and Senator Isakson. We went to see for ourselves what all the so-called fuss is about down there, and we want to help set the record straight.

While we were there we also saw Senator Wyden and Senator Ben Nelson. I am sure they will tell you what they saw when they come to speak on the Senate floor.

Our soldiers assigned in Cuba are on an island within an island. The base is isolated from the rest of Cuba, and it is isolated from the rest of our military. Our troops do not just drive off post to go watch a movie or to go to the mall. All they have is on post, from shopping to entertainment to food.

Many serving at Guantanamo leave their families behind. Some are National Guard troops, far away from home. It is a tough life, and they have a job that is mentally and physically challenging.

As we toured the detention camps, our troops patrolled the buildings and open areas in full uniform. In the afternoon, the temperatures reached into the high 80s, and the humidity could not have gotten much worse. But those brave young men and women stood guard over the detainees to keep them in line and protect them from other detainees.

Probably the weather and the Sun are the last things our troops are worried about. The people they are guarding are the terrorists. They are the worst of the worst. They are all dangerous. Many directly fought Americans on the battlefield, killing and wounding our soldiers, yet our young men and women watch over these terrorists and provide for them. They do this despite the terrorists having taken

up arms against fellow American servicemembers. The danger the terrorists pose to our military in Guantanamo is real and enduring.

While we were inspecting one of the detention facilities, the halls were filled with sounds of detainees beating on metal doors of their cells and yelling at anyone who could hear. Weapons have been found in the detainees' cells and are often made from ordinary items they are provided.

Our troops on the ground in Guantanamo are putting their lives on the line to protect and provide for terrorists. Yet some of my colleagues and others, commentators, suggest that these brave young men and women are the criminals, and when they make such outrageous statements, there are many in the media willing to repeat the accusation without bothering to check the facts for themselves.

For example, almost any picture seen of detainees at Guantanamo is from Camp X-Ray. Everyone is familiar with those pictures. They are the ones with men in orange suits, living in open-air cells made of chain- link fences.

I went to Camp X-Ray. Do you know what I saw? I saw weeds several feet high and plants growing all over the fencing. Do you know what I did not see? People. Camp X-Ray has been closed since 2002. It is no longer used at all. But those images are the ones that continue to appear in print and on the news. It is no secret that Camp X-Ray is closed, but pictures of the new and improved facilities are never shown.

I wish to talk about these new facilities. They have come a long way from concrete slabs surrounded by chain-link fencing. I cannot say I felt bad for any terrorist who had to spend the night in Camp X-Ray, but the new camps are significantly better. They offer the terrorists more privacy, space, and protection from the weather. They offer the terrorists areas for recreation. Some even have air-conditioning and semiprivate showers.

The newest facility is modeled after the state-of-the-art prisons in the United States and is fully air-conditioned. New furniture is on the way, and an even newer facility is about to be built. But I have not seen any of those camps I just described on the news, and I am hopeful that those in the media will help clear up this issue.

But the real issue that goes to the heart of this debate is, Are we serious about fighting terrorism or not? If we are, then these new detention facilities at Guantanamo will remain open until no more terrorists are plotting to harm innocent Americans. What goes on there is critical to our fight against terrorism and the war on terrorism. First and simplest, if the terrorists are locked up in Cuba, then they cannot kill Americans in Iraq or New York, in Afghanistan or even in Kentucky. Those being held at Guantanamo are the worst of the worst terrorists we have captured. The military has decided that they are so dangerous that they must be moved halfway around the world to keep them away from the battlefield. That is reason enough to keep Guantanamo open.

There are bomb makers who are no longer making bombs because they are in Cuba. Terrorist training camp instructors are no longer teaching classes because they are being held next to a Caribbean beach. Others at Guantanamo were caught with heavy weapons, explosives, or anti- aircraft missiles, but they will not get to use those weapons to kill Americans because we are holding them in the detention facilities. One person being held there very well may be the intended 20th hijacker for September 11, but because he is locked in a cell in Cuba, he will not be able to fly a plane into a building anytime soon.

I could describe many individuals held at Guantanamo and give reasons they need to remain in our custody, but I only will mention a few more--12, to be exact. That is the number of those we know who have been released from Guantanamo and returned to fight against the coalition troops. Some have been killed and some have been recaptured. But we must not miss the lesson that we are dealing with dangerous people who will stop at nothing to kill innocent Americans.

But there is more to Guantanamo than locking up terrorists. As important as keeping the terrorists from carrying out their evil plans, we are gaining valuable information from the detainees. Those terrorists are one of our greatest sources of information into terrorist operations, financing, and personnel. Some of them were very close to Osama bin Laden at one time. Others were active in planning terrorist attacks. Still others worked on finance and personnel recruitment for terrorist groups. Think of the wealth of information they have.

The detainees can identify people involved in terrorist groups. They have helped us better understand the structure of terrorist organizations. They know locations and transportation routes. They can validate information gathered on the battlefield. To this day, they continue to provide us with critical information in our fight against terrorism.

We are not gathering information from them in any inhuman way. I saw several interrogations. None of the terrorists were being beaten. There was no torture, and they were not being starved. Throughout the entire detention camp, terrorists were given clothes and bedding. They are given Muslim prayer rugs and Korans. There are arrows everywhere pointing to Mecca. We even witnessed a prayer call announcing to the terrorists that it was time for them to turn to Mecca and pray.

That, Mr. President, is a far cry from the repressive regimes to which critics of Guantanamo have compared our military. Did the Nazis respect the Jewish faith? Did Stalin and Pol Pot practice religious tolerance? Absolutely not.

The detainees are being fed well. In fact, their meals often cost more than the meals served to our troops because of their cultural dietary restrictions. When Hitler imprisoned Jews, he did not go to lengths to prepare them kosher meals that followed their faith.

The military has constructed a hospital for the detainees. While we were there, we saw a detainee being transported to the hospital for an examination. When needed, the terrorists have access to other doctors and medical facilities. If a specialist is needed, then one is brought in. In other words, we give the terrorists the same medical care our troops get.

Many get dental care and glasses for the first time in their lives. Others have been diagnosed with diseases and other medical issues and have received treatment. We have even given amputees new medical limbs.

Again, I ask my colleagues, did Hitler and Pol Pot provide dental care to their prisoners before they killed them?

And the terrorists are not being held without a review process. Each person brought to Guantanamo is reviewed to make sure they really are an enemy combatant. They are also periodically reviewed to make sure they still need to be held at Guantanamo or if they should be moved elsewhere or even released.

The detainees are given a chance to explain their side of the story. International law does not require these combatants be given a review board. Our military is going out of its way to give these terrorists rights above and beyond the evil regimes the war's critics have cited. After all, there were not review boards in the gulags or the concentration camps. The Nazis did not care if their prisoners had taken up arms against Germany. They locked them up into slavery anyway.

Anyone who compares our operations at Guantanamo to those ruthless killers is lying to the public and insulting our troops. No detainees at Guantanamo have died due to their treatment by our troops--none, zero.

Hitler murdered 6 million Jews and caused the death of tens of millions more on the battlefield. Stalin had tens of millions killed. Pol Pot was responsible for the death of about 1 million in his ``killing fields.''

Of course, the detainees are not living in luxury. But these are dangerous killers we are talking about. They are terrorists. But we treat them with respect, which is much more than they have ever treated us with.

Conditions improve every day at Guantanamo. But as long as they are dangerous to America, we must continue to hold them and gather information. We have a determined enemy that wants to do nothing but harm us. The only way to beat them is to stand strong, fight longer, and not back down.

What we are doing at Guantanamo is a key part of our fight. These terrorists cannot hurt us as long as they are locked up. They will continue to provide us with valuable intelligence, and we continue to treat them with the dignity they refuse to show us.

Finally, Mr. President, I want to say thank you to all the brave men and women working for our freedom at Guantanamo and throughout the world. I am always impressed with the fine young Americans in our military. And seeing them yesterday was no exception. I had the privilege of meeting a few soldiers from Kentucky while at Guantanamo Bay. I cannot say their names due to the security reasons we have and to ensure their future safety. They, and others, are serving our country with honor. I thank them and their families for their sacrifices.

Mr. President, it was an unbelievable experience yesterday in Cuba at Guantanamo Bay, one I will remember for the rest of my life.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague from Idaho for his great observation of our trip yesterday. I also know that Senator Isakson was unable to be here, but he will make a statement later this evening. I hope Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Ron Wyden will also come forward and report what they saw at Guantanamo.

I am happy to also thank, as Senator Crapo has, all of our men and women in the military who serve our great country.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I proudly rise today to recognize the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative for their extremely generous contribution of $10 million to Phase II payments for Kentucky tobacco farmers. The people of Kentucky are extremely appreciative of this generous gift.

As you may know, Phase II is the second set of payments from the Master Settlement Agreement. This settlement was made between the major tobacco companies and the elected officials of the tobacco growing States. Phase II money requires $5.15 billion to be contributed by the four companies over a 12 year period. The Phase II money was meant to alleviate some of the financial stress to farmers as quotas were cut.

The Phase II compensations due for 2004, however, were not paid because the tobacco companies requested a refund due to the passage of the tobacco buyout. For Kentucky farmers, this would have been devastating. Fortunately for Kentucky, the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative has donated $10 million to be combined with the $114 million raised by the Commonwealth to equal $124 million for payments. This means that 164,000 Kentucky farmers will have Phase II payment checks in their hands by the end of June.

Mr. President, I find the charitable spirit that was so kindly displayed by the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative to be exceptional in every way. Kentucky is the only State that has stepped forward to produce Phase II payments, and this is due, in large part, to the generosity of Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative. I would like to thank President Henry West and all those involved in the cooperative, including the members, for making such a positive impact on Kentucky's tobacco growers. This extraordinary association has helped ensure that the true spirit of the Phase II agreement is upheld.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow affiliated life and non-life insurance companies to file consolidated tax returns. The current outdated rules do not allow such consolidation.

Consolidated return provisions under current law were enacted so that the members of an affiliated group of corporations could file a single tax return. The right to file a ``consolidated'' return is generally available to businesses of all natures conducted by the affiliated corporations. The purpose behind consolidated returns is simply to tax a complete business as a whole rather than its component parts individually. Whether an enterprise's businesses are operated as divisions within

one corporation or as subsidiary corporations with a common parent company, a business entity should generally be taxed as a single entity and be allowed to file its return accordingly.

Corporate groups which include life insurance companies are denied the ability to file a single consolidated return until they have been affiliated for at least 5 years. Even after this 5-year period, they are subject to two additional limitations that are not applicable to any other type of group. First, non-life insurance companies must be members of the affiliated group for five years before their losses may be used to offset life insurance company income. Second, non-life insurance affiliate losses, including current year losses and any carryover losses, that may offset life insurance company taxable income are limited to the lesser of 35 percent of life insurance company's taxable income or 35 percent of the non-life insurance company's losses.

There are no clear reasons why affiliated groups that include life insurance companies are denied the same unrestricted ability to file consolidated returns that is available to other financial intermediaries, and corporations in general. Allowing members of an affiliated group of corporations to file a consolidated return prevents the business enterprise's structure from obscuring the fact that the true gain or loss of the business enterprise is the conglomeration of each of the members of the affiliated group. The limitations contained in current law are clearly without policy justification and should be repealed.

Our legislation will repeal the two 5-year limitations for taxable years beginning after this year, and it will phase out the 35 percent limitation over 7 years. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has recommended repeal of two of the three limitations addressed by my bill on the grounds of needless complexity. The third limitation is, in effect, merely a minimum tax on life insurance company income. That limitation should have been repealed when the alternative minimum tax was enacted, and certainly has no place in the current tax laws. I should also note that Congress included in the tax cut vetoed by then- President Clinton in 1999 much of what is contained in this legislation.

I thank Senators Conrad, Lott, Smith and Lincoln for joining me in sponsoring this legislation. We hope you will join us as cosponsors of this bipartisan, much-needed legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow affiliated life and non-life insurance companies to file consolidated tax returns. The current outdated rules do not allow such consolidation.

Consolidated return provisions under current law were enacted so that the members of an affiliated group of corporations could file a single tax return. The right to file a ``consolidated'' return is generally available to businesses of all natures conducted by the affiliated corporations. The purpose behind consolidated returns is simply to tax a complete business as a whole rather than its component parts individually. Whether an enterprise's businesses are operated as divisions within

one corporation or as subsidiary corporations with a common parent company, a business entity should generally be taxed as a single entity and be allowed to file its return accordingly.

Corporate groups which include life insurance companies are denied the ability to file a single consolidated return until they have been affiliated for at least 5 years. Even after this 5-year period, they are subject to two additional limitations that are not applicable to any other type of group. First, non-life insurance companies must be members of the affiliated group for five years before their losses may be used to offset life insurance company income. Second, non-life insurance affiliate losses, including current year losses and any carryover losses, that may offset life insurance company taxable income are limited to the lesser of 35 percent of life insurance company's taxable income or 35 percent of the non-life insurance company's losses.

There are no clear reasons why affiliated groups that include life insurance companies are denied the same unrestricted ability to file consolidated returns that is available to other financial intermediaries, and corporations in general. Allowing members of an affiliated group of corporations to file a consolidated return prevents the business enterprise's structure from obscuring the fact that the true gain or loss of the business enterprise is the conglomeration of each of the members of the affiliated group. The limitations contained in current law are clearly without policy justification and should be repealed.

Our legislation will repeal the two 5-year limitations for taxable years beginning after this year, and it will phase out the 35 percent limitation over 7 years. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has recommended repeal of two of the three limitations addressed by my bill on the grounds of needless complexity. The third limitation is, in effect, merely a minimum tax on life insurance company income. That limitation should have been repealed when the alternative minimum tax was enacted, and certainly has no place in the current tax laws. I should also note that Congress included in the tax cut vetoed by then- President Clinton in 1999 much of what is contained in this legislation.

I thank Senators Conrad, Lott, Smith and Lincoln for joining me in sponsoring this legislation. We hope you will join us as cosponsors of this bipartisan, much-needed legislation.

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

Absolutely.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Domenici for his extremely hard work in trying to get an energy policy for the United States since I have been in the Senate.

Many of us have spoken on this Senate floor several times about the need for our national energy policy. We have been here before debating an energy bill. To some, it may seem like the same old song and same old dance. But here we are again. I am more optimistic than I have ever been about finally getting an energy bill to the President's desk.

I commend Chairman Domenici for his leadership and determination in helping to put America on an independent path with this energy legislation. It is a pleasure to serve with him on the Energy Committee.

The Energy bill before us is a good starting point that attempts to strike a balance between conservation and production. In the past, Congress failed to make progress on energy policy because we tried to make a choice between conservation and production, but it does not have to be one or the other.

Many of us understand that a balanced and sensible energy policy must boost production of domestic energy sources as well as promote conservation. This Energy bill takes a good step toward striking a balance, and passing an energy bill is important now more than ever.

We all know the price of energy has risen very sharply in the last few years, and it is only going to keep rising. It goes without saying that energy costs touch every single part of our economy and our lives. The average

price of gasoline has risen, for unleaded regular around this country, to about $2.13 a gallon, and the price of oil is bumping up against $60 a barrel. Natural gas, coal, and other fuels have also seen record prices this year. This is hitting Americans in their wallets, especially now when so many families are hitting the road for vacations.

Higher energy prices also slow business growth and force businesses to pass increased pricing on to consumers with higher priced goods. While passing an energy bill might not help energy prices in the short term, it will make a big difference over the long term.

This bill's domestic energy production provisions and increased conservation provisions will help slow these spikes of price increases. But without a new energy policy, there is not much we can do about rising energy prices. Oil producers and production are at full capacity, and with China and India upping their demands for oil, the world oil supply will be drawn down while prices continue to rise. This means that we cannot just try to conserve our way out of any kind of energy problem. We must find other sources of reliable and low-cost fuels or our economy and national security will be at risk.

We continue to depend on oil from some of the most dangerous and unstable parts of the world. It is a recipe for disaster.

The stock market jumps up and down, all around, depending on the latest reports of pipeline sabotage in the Middle East. Everyone wonders where the next terrorist attack is going to hit. We also worry about Iran's developing nuclear weapons, and we are trying with our allies to figure out a diplomatic answer that will bring stability to the region. But the Iranians do not have a lot of incentive to deal when they are getting nearly $60 a barrel for their oil. In a way, our increasing need for energy is cutting our influence in the part of the world where we need it the most. We have to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and do a better job internally of taking care of our own energy needs.

Congress has been playing political football with this issue over the past few Congresses, and it is time to end the game. Our Nation and our national security continue to be at risk. We do not want the United States beholden to other countries just to keep our engines running and our lights turned on.

It impresses me to know that the bill contains some strengthened electrical provisions. We have outgrown our electrical system, and changes need to be made. One of the provisions in the bill is PUHCA repeal, which will go a long way in helping our energy system meet increasing demands.

Also, we desperately need to build new transmission lines. I am glad to see that this bill has some provisions which will help ensure that happens. Building a better electric system, however, should not require mandates for electricity companies to get into regional transmission organizations. States and companies should be able to decide on their own what is best for their consumers. So I am pleased to see a provision in the bill that explicitly prevents FERC from mandating RTOs.

The Energy bill will also help reduce our dependence on foreign oil by increasing domestic energy production. It also provides important conservation provisions which will help protect the environment. And because coal is such a key industry in Kentucky, I am pleased that this bill contains clean coal provisions that I have authored and been pushing for a long time. The clean coal provisions will help to increase domestic energy production and help improve the environment.

Coal is an important part of our energy plans. It is cheap, plentiful, and we do not have to go very far to find it. For my home State and the States of others, this means more jobs and a cleaner place to live. Clean coal technologies will significantly reduce emissions and sharply increase efficiencies in turning coal into electricity.

Previously, our Government overpromoted production of one source of energy--natural gas. This not only depleted our supply, but it created so much demand that it completely outstripped supply and left Americans to pay higher prices for just this one energy source.

A sound energy policy should promote the use of many different types of fuels and technologies instead of favoring just one source. As we have seen time and again, putting all our eggs in one basket simply does not work.

I am glad we are turning things around and taking steps toward making sure clean coal and other sources play a vital role in meeting our future energy needs.

This bill encourages research and development of clean coal technology by authorizing about $2.4 billion for the department of energy.

These funds will be used to advance new technologies to significantly reduce emissions and increase efficiency of turning coal into electricity.

And almost $2 billion will be used for the clean coal power initiative.

This is where the Department of Energy will work with industry to advance efficiency, environmental performance, and cost competitiveness of new clean coal technologies.

And the Finance Committee's energy tax package provides $2.7 billion to encourage the use of coal and deployment of clean coal technologies.

Coal plays an important role in our economy. It provides over 50 percent of the energy needed for our Nation's energy.

The Energy Information Administration expects coal will continue to remain the primary fuel for electricity generation over the next 2 decades.

As my colleagues can see, I am a little biased when it comes to coal.

It means so much to my State, and it is such an affordable and plentiful fuel to help America in her quest for energy independency.

The 21st century economy is going to require increased amounts of reliable, clean, and affordable energy to keep our Nation running, and clean coal can help fill that requirement.

With research advances, we have the know-how to better balance conservation with the need for increased energy production at home.

The diversity of this energy package to promote new fuels is quite impressive.

There are provisions for nuclear, hydro-power, solar, wind, bio-fuels and other renewable energy sources.

All this put together with the bill's conservation provisions will help America meet its sensible and long-term energy strategy and goals.

I look forward to the continued debate and consideration of this bill.

And I hope we can get it approved, conferenced and sent to the President's desk for his consideration.

The quicker we can do this, then the sooner we can help make our environment, economy, and national security stronger, and the sooner we can become more energy independent from other sources.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to state my opposition to the nomination Dr. Ben S. Bernanke to be a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisors.

Mr. Bernanke is a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and he has previously come before the Senate Banking Committee. I voted for his nomination in committee and on the Senate floor to become member of the Board of Governors. I supported him based on our conversation in a private meeting we had in my office. As Members of the Senate and those who follow the Senate know, I have had some concerns about the Federal Reserve.

One of my biggest concerns is that the Federal Open Market Committee--FOMC--suffers from group think which seems to have no cure-- because it seems to me that no one ever challenges Chairman Alan Greenspan.

I think for the FOMC to function properly, members must be true to their convictions and challenge the chairman. No chairman should be able to dominate without dissent. There must be intellectual sparring so all of the committee members are heard and the FOMC can come up with the best decision for our country. The FOMC needs independent voices.

Governor Bernanke promised me he would be an independent voice. He promised me he would stand up to the chairman if the thought he was wrong or was being rolled. He promised that he would be that independent voice on the FOMC that would challenge the chairman if he thought he was wrong.

Sadly, I have not seen very much evidence of his independence--or anyone else's independence for that matter. I have not seen him ever vote against the chairman. I have not seen him use his bully pulpit to challenge the chairman. As far as I can tell, they have not had a major disagreement. I find it hard to believe that he and Chairman Greenspan think exactly the same about all of these diverse and important opinions within the FOMC.

I As important as I think it is for a member of the FOMC to be independent, it is more important for the head of the President's Council of Economic Advisors--CEA--to be independent. The chairman of the CEA must stand up to the President when he believes the President is wrong. He must challenge him. And based on his performance at the FOMC, I am not convinced that Mr. Bernanke will do that.

Because he has not convinced this Senator that he will be an independent voice, I regretfully cannot support his nomination.

Mr. President, I pay tribute in the Senate to the Northern Kentucky University Women's Softball Team for their remarkable season and recent participation in the NCAA Division II World Series.

The NKU was the No. 1 ranked team in the country and were the NCAA Division II Great Lakes Regional Champs. The team finished the most successful season in school history with a 55-2 record. The 55 game winning streak is the longest in collegiate softball history.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky should be very proud of this team. Their example of hard work and determination should be followed by all in the Commonwealth. I want my colleagues in the Senate to know of the pride that I have in representing these athletes and their families: Sarah Newland, Jamie Patton, Becky Napier, Krystal Lewallen, Kara Lorenz, Ricki Rothbauer, Heather Cotner, Stephanie Leimbach, Michelle Logan, Angie Lindeman, Emily Breitholle, Jeni Schamp, Sarah King, Megan Owens, Rachele Vogelpohl, and Sara Becker.

Congratulations to the members of the team for their success. I also want to congratulate their coach, Kathy Stewart, along with their peers, faculty, administrators, and parents for their support and sacrifices they've made to help the NKU meet their dreams and achieve their goals.

Mr. President, I speak today on the nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I want to express my full support for his confirmation.

Despite the criticisms of some of my colleagues across the aisle, John Bolton is without a doubt one the most qualified people to fill this position. I believe his no-nonsense diplomacy will be a welcome change at the U.N., and one that will prove to be effective in the future.

Now more than ever, the United Nations is in need of drastic reform. As the world's only super power and one of the original founders of the organization, it is the United States' responsibility to play leading role in this reform. Mr. Bolton's nomination is a reflection of this commitment. His pursuit for the truth will serve him well in holding the United Nations accountable for its past mistakes.

Although he is not a career diplomat, Mr. Bolton has a strong record of success within the international community. He has played pivotal roles in the signing of the treaty of Moscow, the repeal of the U.N. General Assembly's 1975 resolution that equated Zionism with racism, and the negotiations in the G-8 Partnership Against the Proliferation of WMD to name a few.

Mr. Bolton not only possesses the tenacity to deal with the U.N. but also has experience dealing with the organization on a first-hand basis. He voluntarily, I repeat voluntarily, worked for the U.N. between 1997 and 2000 with former Secretary of State James Baker on resolving the conflict in the Western Sahara. Not only did he play an integral role in creating a viable ``peace plan'' for the area, but did so on his own time.

Mr. President, this flies directly in the face of my colleagues across the isle, who repeatedly accuse Mr. Bolton of hating the U.N. and wanting to dismantle the organization permanently. Rather than being committed to the organization's demise, I believe he is more committed to making it stronger and more effective.

I find myself deeply saddened by the efforts of a minority of Senators to delay Mr. Bolton's confirmation. He is an extremely qualified candidate, who has been confirmed by the Senate four times in the past. Why the change of heart now?

Rather than questioning Mr. Bolton's qualifications for the position and the need for U.N. reform, a minority of Senators are engaging themselves in what boils down to character assassination. I challenge my colleagues to look at Mr. Bolton's real character. He is a man of integrity and honesty, whose candid personality will serve him well at the United Nations.

I am confident the Senate will confirm Mr. Bolton. I wish him well in his new position and with the daunting task of reforming the United Nations. It is not an easy one. Despite this challenge, I believe he will be a welcome addition to the organization and an agent of change in the international community.

Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate Mr. Matth Toebben of Northern Kentucky, who was recently honored with one of the ``Movers and Shakers'' awards for the Greater Cincinnati area. Mr. Toebben's life accomplishments and dedication to Commonwealth of Kentucky have given me reason to be proud.

I believe Mr. Toebben to be the embodiment of the American Dream. After immigrating to the United States from Borger, Germany in 1953 with only $10 to his name, he used all of his money to buy a train ticket to Cincinnati. Upon arrival in the area, Mr. Toebben took up not only one job, but two jobs as a carpenter for a Ft. Wright home builder in Northern Kentucky. He worked both night and day saving as much money as he could. This quickly paid off and by 1955, only 2 years after his arrival to the United States, Mr. Toebben started his own business, Toebben Builders and Developers.

The ``Movers and Shakers'' award of Northern Kentucky is an annual award presented to honor those within the Greater Cincinnati region who stand as an example for all. It is presented by the Kentucky Enquirer, the Sales and Marketing Council of Northern Kentucky, The Home Builders Association of Northern Kentucky and The Kentucky Post.

As a Senator from Kentucky, I commend Mr. Toebben for his hard work and dedication. I hope that he will serve as an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky.

Mr. President, I do.

Mr. President, what is the current business before the Senate?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, it is important for Senators to understand what we are talking about here. We are talking about the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to be a Federal circuit judge. We are talking about her qualifications and about fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities to give advice and consent. We are talking about whether each Senator will vote yes or no in an up-or-down vote on the nomination of Justice Owen. And soon we will be talking about the long-blocked nominations of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, and others passed by the Judiciary Committee.

As the Presiding Officer said, the Senate's pending business is the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen. Justice Owen has had a distinguished record as a judge who respects the rule of law. She understands that elected legislators write the law, not judges. As a judge, she has applied the law as it is written, not as she wished it were written.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Justice Owen ``well qualified.'' Everyone here knows that the ABA is not exactly a conservative organization, so that rating speaks volumes. She has served on the Supreme Court of Texas for more than 10 years, where she has earned the respect and endorsements of Democratic justices and attorneys, and more impressively than that, in her most recent election, she received 84 percent of the vote. I cannot imagine getting 84 percent.

Just last week, I met with Justice Owen. I was impressed with her intelligence and honesty. I was impressed with her energy and determination to see this through. But most of all, I am satisfied that Justice Owen will interpret the law rather than try to write it, and I am convinced that she will stand up to any other judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals who try to rewrite the law from the bench.

Why has Justice Owen been denied an up-or-down vote? As best I can tell, it is because they crossed the radical left when she voted not to take away a mother's right to know that her teenage daughter wanted to have an abortion. Justice Owen did not write the Texas law requiring notification. The legislature did. She merely agreed with the two lower courts that the requirement of the exceptions in the law had not been met.

In the time when a teenage girl cannot get her ears pierced at the mall or take an aspirin at school without parental consent, it is not out of the mainstream to enforce a law requiring notice to a parent before that same teenager can get an abortion.

Another nominee we are discussing this week, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, is also a nominee who will stand up to the activist judges on the Ninth Circuit Court. Justice Brown has been on the California Supreme Court for 9 years, and she received 76 percent of the vote in her last election, the most of any justice on that year's ballot.

Justice Brown has earned a reputation as a judge who respects the law and the California Legislature's decisions. She has consistently deferred to the legislature's judgment and not substituted her own political views. In other words, she knows the role of a judge is not to write the law but to apply the law.

Justice Brown has also earned the respect of her California colleagues. In recent years, she has been chosen by the court to write the majority opinions more times than any of her fellow justices. She has the endorsement of both the Republicans and Democratic judges, lawyers, and law professors in California.

Critics point to the statements that Justice Brown made about her policy views outside--outside, I say--of the courtroom. While some may not agree with her personal opinions on issues, outside the courtroom is the place where she should feel free to make her policy views known.

Some of her political views may conflict with the laws of the State of California, but Justice Brown has had no problem applying those laws to the cases before her. That is exactly what a judge is supposed to do--apply the law to the facts of the case regardless of whether the judge would have voted for that law if she or he had been in the legislature.

Mr. President, 5 years ago, a discussion like this about nominees would have been overlooked by most Members of this body. A few Senators would give a statement on the Senate floor in support of a nominee to a circuit court. A few more Senators would insert a statement into the Record. And then the Senate would confirm the nominee by a rollcall vote or even a voice vote. That was the ordinary course of business in this body for 214 years. But that is not the case anymore.

Ever since President Bush was elected, his nominees to the circuit court have been denied an up-or-down vote. During the 107th Congress, many of his nominees did not advance when the Senate was under Democratic control. During the 108th Congress, Democrats instituted the first partisan filibuster of judicial nominees, all of whom have majority support in this body.

We hear a lot from the other side about minority rights. No one on this side of the aisle wants to restrict the opposition's ability to speak their objections and vote against these nominees. I invite Senators who oppose these nominees to come to this floor and speak their objections. I encourage them to try to convince me why I should vote against these nominees.

Instead, this is about a minority of Senators trying to take for themselves a power that the Constitution gives only to the President of the United States. This is about a minority of Senators thwarting 214 years of Senate tradition. This is about the obligation and fairness of giving a nominee a vote. This is all about whether elections in this country mean anything.

We are currently engaged in a war against terrorism. We have helped the Iraqi people conduct peaceful democratic elections; also the people of Afghanistan. We have seen the power of the democratic process in the Ukraine,

and we have seen the strength of the voice of the people longing for freedom in Lebanon. Even Kuwait is taking steps to allow women to vote for the first time. How can we as a nation speak of the power of the people, the validity of the democratic process and the strength of the vote, if we let a minority in this body thwart the will of the democratically elected President and majority of this body?

Last fall, the American people spoke clearly. In the highest numbers in history, the American people went to the polls and voiced their opinion with their votes. The American people chose George W. Bush as their President, and the American people created a 55-vote majority for the Republicans in this Senate by electing 7 new Republican Senators. The message the American people sent is clear. They support President Bush and Republican policies and values more than what the other side of the aisle had to offer.

The Constitution gives the President, and only the President, the power to make nominations. It is up to him to pick a nominee. We in the Senate are only empowered to speak for or against and to vote for or against a nominee.

The nominees' records have been examined. Senators have come forth with their objections, and there is still time for objections to be spoken. We have offered to debate the nominations for as much time as the minority wants, to be followed by an up-or-down vote. But the time has come for us to set that vote. The President deserves to have that vote, the majority of the Senate deserves to have that vote, but particularly the nominees deserve to have that vote, and the American people deserve to have that vote. The American people deserve to see how their elected representatives vote on these nominations and to see what kind of judges their Senators support.

We have a crisis in the Federal judiciary. We have too many judges who act like they are in Congress, not on the bench. Those judges are imposing their values on the American people through their decisions. That is why we must confirm nominees like the ones before the Senate, to stand up to activist judges and uphold the law and the Constitution and not write new laws from the bench. Liberal special interests have taken over the Democratic Party and are fighting to stop these nominees, and therefore a minority of Senators is thwarting more than 200 years of Senate tradition to block votes on these nominees.

The other side has no other way to advance its ultraliberal agenda. They cannot pass their laws through this Congress or through State legislatures. They cannot even get elected by running on these issues. So they must turn to the courts, the last holdout of active liberal power to impose their agenda.

What is that agenda? It is unlimited abortion on demand, without even notice to the parents of a minor child or the father of that child. It is about allowing partial-birth abortions. That liberal agenda is about rewriting the definition of marriage. It is about stripping down the pledge of allegiance because it recognizes God. That agenda is about banishing the Ten Commandments from public buildings. That agenda is allowing pornographic photos and other things into our libraries and across the Internet.

That ultraliberal agenda does not sell in the heartland around the dinner table. It does not even sell here in the Congress. So the last great hope for the liberals is the judicial bench, and that is why they fight these judicial nominees who do not give in to their liberal, activist agenda. The only thing that can stop the rewriting of our Constitution and laws is judges who will stand up to that activism and fight for the rule of law. President Bush has nominated such individuals. Now the Senate must allow an up-or-down vote on those nominees.

There are other consequences to this debate as well. The confirmation process has become quite a burden on the nominees and their families. In the last Congress, one of the most qualified judicial nominees ever, Miguel Estrada, asked for his nomination to be withdrawn because of the strains on his personal life and family. Several more nominees asked not to be renominated in the 109th Congress because of those same burdens. There are also practical consequences for the American people who rely on a functioning court system.

Because of the vacant seats, our appeals courts are experiencing huge delays that are unfair to the parties and put added strain on sitting judges. Nowhere is that more pronounced than in the Sixth Circuit, which encompasses my State. One-quarter of the seats of that court sit empty because the nominees from one State, Michigan, are being denied an up-or-down vote. Those vacancies have a real effect on the lives of 30 million people who live in the Sixth Circuit. The people of Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Michigan, the people of the Sixth Circuit, are being denied justice in a timely manner.

This issue is far too important to leave unresolved any longer. We must move to a vote. The record is clear. The nominees before the Senate are qualified to serve on the Federal bench and deserve to be confirmed by the Senate. They have the proper understanding of the role of each branch of Government under our Constitution. They will stand up to those who wish to use the court as an unelected legislature. They deserve an up-or-down vote.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I honor the Laurel High School's Boys Basketball Team for winning the Kentucky High School Athletic Association State Championship on March 19, 2005. As you may know, winning a State high school championship is no small feat. A great number of teams have to be defeated before any team even gets into the playoff. Once in the playoff that team is able to prove decisively whether or not they are the champions.

I am proud to say that South Laurel High School's Boys Basketball Team proved themselves the champions. This accomplishment took hard work, focus, patience, and team spirit. It is important that all our young people learn these qualities. And I would like to point out that in winning the State championship, they have not only attained a trophy, but more importantly, they have developed characteristics that will always be of help to them later on.

Winning a State championship is a great athletic achievement. I want the boys of this team to be proud of themselves, as I am proud of them. They have done well. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Boys Basketball Team of South Laurel High School, and I encourage them to keep up the good work.

Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate Mr. Jim Huff of Northern Kentucky who was recently honored with one of the ``Movers and Shakers'' awards for the Greater Cincinnati area. Mr. Huffs life accomplishments and dedication to Commonwealth of Kentucky have given me reason to be proud.

Over the past 60 years, Mr. Huff has grown to be a leader both within the community of Northern Kentucky and within the real estate industry. He has served as chairman of the Kentucky Real Estate Commission for five consecutive terms. During this time he established a statewide errors and omissions insurance platform, which continues to serve the needs of Kentucky real estate practitioners today. In 1981, he was awarded Realtor of the Year by the Kenton-Boone Board of Realtors, for which he later served as president.

Throughout his life, Mr. Huff has always been active in civic affairs in Northern Kentucky. He has been an integral part of his community serving on numerous boards, including Northern Kentucky University Foundation, Saint Elizabeth Medical Foundation, Kids Helping Kids, Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky Fine Arts Foundation and as a trustee for Thomas More College.

The ``Movers and Shakers'' award of Northern Kentucky is an annual award presented to honor those within the greater Cincinnati region who stand as an example for all. It is presented by the Kentucky Enquirer, the Sales and Marketing Council of Northern Kentucky, The Home Builders Association of Northern Kentucky, and The Kentucky Post.

As a Senator from Kentucky, I appreciate the devotion Mr. Huff has shown over the years to the citizens of Kentucky. I commend his efforts and hope his example of dedication and hard work will serve as an inspiration to the entire State.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Rob Portman to fill the post of U.S. Trade Representative. I have been privileged to work with Rob for over 10 years.

As my colleagues know, Rob represents the Cincinnati district which is just over the river from my home in northern Kentucky. Over the years, Rob and I have developed a strong professional relationship as we worked together on issues important to the northern Kentucky-Greater Cincinnati region and the Nation.

But just as importantly, I am honored to be able to call Rob Portman my good friend. My wife Mary and I have come to know Rob, his wife Jane, and their children quite well over the years and we admire and respect them.

So I come to you as someone who knows Rob Portman as well as any other Member of Congress to tell you that President Bush could not have picked a better man for this job. Rob is one of the smartest guys in Washington and he combines that intelligence with sound judgment and a strong moral compass.

We are all aware of Rob's ability to work in a bipartisan manner to accomplish legislative goals. I am confident Rob will bring this ability to build bridges to his job as the U.S. Trade Representative--a job where bridge building is integral to success.

I can't think of anyone that I would rather have representing our country to the world, and I urge my colleagues to act favorably and quickly on his nomination.

Nomination of Robert Portman