Floor Statements

Madam President, I would like to take this time to congratulate North Oldham High School in Goshen, KY.

Newsweek magazine recently published a list of the top 1,500 public schools in the country. The 15 schools that made the list from Kentucky rank among the top 6 percent of public schools in the Nation. What is even more impressive is that Kentucky had three more schools ranked this year than in 2008, showing improvement in our State's schools. Placing as one of 15 schools from Kentucky on this list, North Oldham High School has earned national recognition for the fine performance of its students and faculty.

I am proud of the students of North Oldham High School. Their commitment to education is a fine example for the entire Commonwealth, and I take pride in recognizing them on the floor of the Senate.

Madam President, we are in morning business, is that correct?

Madam President, I have four amendments I wish to discuss to the pending bill. I will not call them up but I wish to discuss them. When the bill is presented on the floor, then I will come back and talk about the specific amendments that are going to be considered in the first tranche of amendments.

First, I rise today in strong opposition to the tobacco regulatory bill on the floor. This sweeping legislation would dramatically increase the FDA's regulatory authority outside the scope of original congressional intent. This is something that Congress did not intend to give the FDA when we wrote the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and that intent was even upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. Yet there are still some of my colleagues out here who believe it would be safer for the American public to regulate tobacco under the FDA. They argue that, by doing so, we will help reduce the negative effect of smoking and prevent underage smokers.

As a grandfather of 39 grandchildren, believe me, I want to keep cigarettes out of the hands of kids. But the bill before us today does not do that. It is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate our national tobacco industry. The big problem with this approach is that our Nation's tobacco

farmers are the ones who are going to pay the price.

Not once in this bill did I read any language that would provide any type of protection to our tobacco farmers--not even once. This is why I have introduced the four amendments. Let me give you their numbers: 1236, 1237, 1238, and 1239.

If the FDA is going to regulate tobacco and require sweeping changes within the industry, I want to ensure that farmers have a voice at the negotiating table. My amendments do this. Not only do they allow for fair grower representation, but they help ensure that those who will be most affected by this legislation will not be forced to pay the biggest price.

Let me be clear that I oppose the FDA regulation of tobacco. I have said that as long as tobacco is a legal commodity, it should be regulated through the USDA, the United States Department of Agriculture, not the FDA. If we are going to discuss giving the FDA this authority through this or similar legislation, I want to make sure that we consider the impact on agriculture.

In Kentucky, the family farm is the foundation for who we are as a State. For over a century, the family farm in Kentucky has centered around one crop--tobacco. Tobacco barns and small plots of tobacco dot the Kentucky landscape. We are proud of our heritage and proud that tobacco plays a role in our history. Even after the buy-out, tobacco still plays a prominent role in my State's agricultural landscape.

We have tried to broaden our agricultural base. We have had some success with several types of vegetables, cattle, and even raising catfish. But at the end of the day, nothing brings as much of a return to the small farmer in Kentucky as tobacco. It is big business for small farmers.

With the current economic conditions, more and more farmers in my State are turning to growing tobacco to supplement their income or, in a lot of cases, tobacco is their sole source of income. The money they get from tobacco pays their mortgages, puts their kids through school, and actually allows them to stay on the farm.

Outside of the western part of my State, Kentucky does not have tens of thousands of acres of flat land. We have a lot of green, rolling hills and a climate where tobacco thrives. It can be raised very cheaply on small plots of land that simply cannot accommodate other crops. Whether we like it or not, tobacco remains an economic staple for rural Kentucky. It is profitable and farmers rely on it. That might not be popular today, but it is an economic reality that we have to face.

Whatever the opponents of tobacco say, there is no denying that this bill will add unnecessary mandates and expenses on the farmers in the attempt to punish the big tobacco companies. Sure, this bill will hurt big tobacco companies. They might have to move offshore. They might have to start exporting more of their products. But they will survive. But Kentucky's tobacco farmers do not have these options available to them. They are the ones who are going to be hurt by this type of legislation.

Some of my colleagues might support this legislation because they wish to outlaw tobacco. The last time I looked, tobacco was still a legal product in this country. If my colleagues want to make it illegal, let them be honest and upfront about it. Let's consider legislation to make it illegal. We can fight that here, out on the floor of the Senate. But let's not keep trying to slip it through the back door, through overregulation and taxes in the name of preventing underage smoking.

Children should not have cigarettes. They should not. This is why we have age limits and advertising limits. We should do all that we can to keep cigarettes out of the hands of our kids. But the bill before us is not the answer. We can do better and should do better. All this bill does is move the regulation of a legal product from several agencies to another, one that has no jurisdiction to regulate it.

The only people this bill is going to hurt in the end are not the big tobacco companies, but the small and honest farmers who depend on tobacco to pay their bills. This is why I have offered four farmer- friendly amendments to the bill. I want to explain for a few minutes the four.

One, Bunning amendment No. 1236, clarifies that nothing in this bill would prevent our farmers from growing and cultivating tobacco as they have been able to do for the past hundred-plus years.

My second amendment, No. 1237, establishes a grower grant program that would help ease the financial burden of this bill on our farmers.

Amendment No. 1238 gives growers a seat at the negotiating table. The underlying bill establishes a Tobacco Scientific Advisory Committee made up of 12 members. Seven of those members are from the medical field to ensure that public health needs are taken into account. There is one of the public, and three representatives from the tobacco industry. There are two manufacturers and one grower. All members of the committee are voting except for the last three--the tobacco representatives. My amendment is simple. It gives the tobacco representatives the right to vote and adds two more grower positions. That way, all three forms of tobacco--burley, flue cured and dark leaf--are represented at the negotiating table.

The final Bunning amendment, No. 1239, asks the FDA if they are going to impose any new restrictions or requirements on farmers, then they should consider and conduct a feasibility study so that we know the effect on the farm level.

When my amendments come up, I encourage my colleagues to support them.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing Greenup County, KY, for paying tribute to Army SPC Jeremy R. Gullett.

SPC Jeremy R. Gullett served in the 4th Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division based out of Fort Campbell. He lost his life in the line of duty on May 7, 2008, in the Sabari District of Afghanistan.

This evening Greenup County will have a dedication ceremony to name a local bridge after Specialist Gullett, honoring his life and service to our Nation. The bridge will serve as a reminder to all of those who live or travel through Greenup County of the sacrifice Specialist Gullett made for our freedom.

A member of the Greenup County High School Class of 2003, Specialist Gullett participated in his high school's Junior ROTC program and joined our Nation's Armed Forces soon after earning his diploma. In addition to serving under our Nation's armed services, Specialist Gullett was a member of Little Sandy Volunteer Fire Department and Veterans of Foreign Wars, dedicating his life to service domestically and internationally.

Specialist Gullett's sacrifice for our Nation will forever be a reminder that freedom comes at a high cost. We should never take for granted the sacrifice that men and women make daily in all branches of the Armed Forces.

As we commemorate the life and service of SPC Jeremy Gullett, my thoughts and prayers are with his friends and family. All Kentuckians and Americans are deeply indebted to Specialist Gullett.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to and congratulate Jeff Simpson, owner of Johnny's Car Wash in Erlanger, KY, on their 50th year in business.

In 1959, John Simpson, father of Jeff Simpson, converted the original Town Car Wash, an establishment in Covington, KY, where cars were washed by hand, to an automatic car wash he named Johnny's Car Wash. Mr. Simpson opened a second location in Erlanger, KY, that still thrives today. Nearly four decades later, in 1992, Mr. Simpson sold his original Johnny's Car Wash to his son Jeff, and this year they celebrate 50 years of hard work, ambition, and the long success of their business.

A hearty congratulations to the Simpson family and Johnny's Car Wash. They are an excellent example of a steady and thriving small business in the Commonwealth.

Mr. President, today I congratulate the Georgetown/Scott County Chamber of Commerce, a nonprofit business organization that recently celebrated its 50th anniversary.

The Georgetown/Scott County Chamber of Commerce was founded in 1959. The chamber promotes local businesses and ensures that jobs stay in the Georgetown and Scott County area. During this uncertain economic time, organizations such as the Georgetown/Scott County Chamber of Commerce strive to ensure that local businesses continue to prosper. The chamber celebrated this distinct milestone at its annual banquet on April 24, 2009, where current chamber president Christie Hockensmith expressed her optimism for the next 50 years.

Again, I congratulate the Georgetown/Scott County Chamber of Commerce on 50 years of service. I wish the chamber the best in the future and in continued support of local businesses.

Madam President, today I recognize Dr. Andrew Moore of Lexington, KY, for being the recipient of the Fayette County Hero of the Year presented by the Bluegrass Area Chapter of the American Red Cross.

The Hero of the Year award was presented to Dr. Moore on April 23, 2009. The Heroes campaign fosters community awareness and generates funds to support the mission and services of the American Red Cross.

Dr. Moore is the founder and president of the nonprofit organization Surgery on Sunday, which provides outpatient surgical services to income-eligible individuals and families who are without health insurance and are not eligible for Federal or State assistance. Patients are referred to the program by community organizations and receive medical procedures that range from general operations to dental work and reconstructive surgeries.

In its first year of operation, Surgery on Sunday provided services to more than 150 individuals without health insurance or the means to pay. By the end of its second year, the organization had performed more than 2,000 procedures. It is estimated that $1.5 million worth of medical services has been donated by more than 600 volunteer surgeons, physicians, nurses, and other health professionals.

I would like to thank Dr. Moore and all of the volunteers for Surgery on Sunday for their contributions to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Dr. Moore is truly an inspiration to all Kentuckians and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Thomas Strickland to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife at the Department of the Interior. I have met with Mr. Strickland, and while he has a distinguished career in public service, I do not believe he is the appropriate candidate to fill this position. His disregard for second amendment rights, coupled with his position on domestic energy production, leaves me little choice other than to oppose his nomination today.

In December of this past year, the Department of the Interior took great steps forward toward reversing the ban on lawful firearms in parks. However, because of one court case on technical grounds, millions of law-abiding park visitors find their second amendment rights challenged yet again. For decades, regulations enacted by unelected bureaucrats at the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have prohibited law-abiding citizens from transporting and possessing operational firearms on Federal lands managed by these agencies. The enactment of these rules preempted State laws, bypassed the authority of Congress, and trampled on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans guaranteed by the second amendment for more than 170,000 acres of public lands. No other Federal land management agency has enacted anti-gun rules similar to the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife.

Both the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service allow for the law of the State in which the Federal property is located to govern firearm possession. Neither of these agencies experienced any difficulties as a result of allowing firearm possession.

I have met with my friend, Secretary Salazar, who is now the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and told him of my support for repealing this firearm ban. At the time, Secretary Salazar agreed with me and stated before the Senate Energy Committee that he supports repealing the ban. This is the same committee that

voted this past November, 18 to 5--I repeat that, the committee voted 18 to 5--to repeal the ban. Secretary Salazar, then-Senator Salazar, voted in support of the repeal. Because of one court case, the Department of the Interior is backpedaling on its original position.

I believe this is an unsound policy and extremely shortsighted. This is why I, along with my good friend Senator Coburn and 16 other colleagues in the Senate, sent a letter to the Department of the Interior for a clarification of its views on this regulation. While I appreciate the Secretary getting back to me so quickly on this, the response I received was short and vague. I have always had a good working relationship with Secretary Salazar. In the past, he has gone out of his way to tell me personally of his support for second amendment rights. Rest assured, I will hold him to his word and will be watching this situation very closely as it continues to unfold. I will continue to work with the Department of the Interior to get this regulation implemented properly.

I am also concerned about this nominee's stance on domestic energy production. I have long said, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, that America has a domestic resource to meet its growing energy needs. In order to meet them, we need to use all our resources, including nuclear, clean coal, renewables, along with oil and natural gas. America has a wealth of oil and natural gas reserves that, if utilized properly and in an environmentally sound manner, could meet our energy demands for decades to come. The nominee before us today, Thomas Strickland, does not support using all forms of energy. He has been very public in his position that we should not open ANWR to domestic energy production. I have been to ANWR to see firsthand what all the talk was about. After visiting it, I am even more confident in my support for drilling there.

We met with the environmentalists and villagers on the border of ANWR and talked to them about the desperate need of the United States for more domestic energy sources. There were a few residents who expressed opposition, but they were in a very small minority. The majority of the people living near ANWR, more than 75 percent, support drilling there. I know that Strickland, along with some of my colleagues in the Senate, is desperate to stop us from opening ANWR. The facts about ANWR, however, are not on their side. Some of these facts need to be repeated, especially for those who are new to this debate.

ANWR itself is roughly the size of South Carolina. It is absolutely enormous. It is 19.6 million acres or 30,000 square miles. When we talk about drilling in ANWR, we are talking about clean drilling in an area that is less than 2,000 acres. That is one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the total acreage in ANWR. It is actually smaller than most airports.

To say that drilling in this limited portion of ANWR threatens the entire environment of this refuge is farfetched and just plain wrong.

During my trip, I visited the sites at Alpine and Prudhoe Bay. There is no doubt in my mind that we can develop ANWR in a safe and effective manner. Drilling will only be a small footprint in ANWR that can be carried out in an environmentally sound manner. State-of-the-art technology will lessen the environmental impact. The old stereotypes of dirty oil drilling don't apply anymore. We all want to do what we can to protect the environment, but it is not credible to say that looking for oil in this small, limited part of ANWR is a dangerous threat to the entire region. As our demand for energy is growing, we must increase our energy supply to keep up. ANWR is the most promising domestic source of oil we have. To automatically take it off the negotiating table, as this nominee has, is shortsighted.

Finally, I have concerns with Mr. Strickland's stance on regulation for coal mining operations. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is home to some of our Nation's largest coal reserves. In fact, we have about 250 years of coal reserves or about the same amount of coal reserves that Saudi Arabia has for oil. I am proud to come from a State that has coal reserves and firmly believe we have the ability to develop and use this natural resource in an environmentally sound manner. This is why I was pleased, last December, when the Department of the Interior issued a rule to clarify the disposal of excess spoil created by coal mining operations.

The rule also requires mine operators avoid disturbing streams, to the greatest extent possible, and clarifies when mine operators must maintain an undisturbed buffer between the mine and the adjacent streams. Aside from striking a balance between environmental protections and responsible mining operations, this new rule clarified a longstanding dispute over how the surface mining law should be applied.

Past confusion over how it should be applied has led to undue litigation, suspension of mining operations and, ultimately, job loss for many mining communities across the country and in Kentucky. In discussions I had with both the Secretary of the Interior and Mr. Strickland earlier this year, I expressed my support for this new rule and respectfully asked that they take this support into account. Both nominees stated they would not overturn the rule. Yet this past week the Department of the Interior reversed its position and asked for the rule to be overturned.

Issuance of the rule represents the culmination of a 7-year process that was complete and well thought out. While developing the rule, the Office of Surface Mining solicited public input and received over 43,000 comments on the proposal.

They held four public hearings that were attended by over 700 people. When considering alternatives to the proposed rule in the Environmental Impact Statement, OSM selected the most environmentally protective option. It helps ensure that coal mining activities are conducted in a manner that protects both mining communities and the environment. Overturning this rule risks returning to a state of confusion about how to apply the surface mining law, risking the future of mining operations, local communities, and ultimately access to our most reliable domestic source of energy.

In my home State of Kentucky, over 24,000 jobs are at risk should surface mining operations be disrupted. I repeat that. Over 24,000 jobs are at risk should surface mining operations be disrupted. This is about half the jobs at risk for the region of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Virginia.

I am very disappointed that the Department of Interior, under the leadership of both Secretary Salazar and Mr. Strickland, chose to overturn this rule. Not only will it delay coal mining operations, but it will also jeopardize jobs and energy production. That is why I find myself on the floor unable to support this nominee today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the conference report on the fiscal year 2010 budget. Unfortunately, I will not be able to support this legislation. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee since I have been in the Senate, I spoke on this budget during the committee consideration, and I also spoke on it while it was on the Senate floor. I was unable to support it those two times, and I am disappointed to say I will not be able to support it here either.

Today marks the 100th day of the Obama administration. It is still too early to see most of the effects the different pieces of legislation the President has signed into law will have on America. However, we do know one thing: It sure has cost a lot.

The price tag for the so-called stimulus bill was over $1 trillion, if you include the interest. The cost of the Omnibus appropriations bill was about $410 billion. What does this mean? It means that over these first 100 days, President Obama has spent an average of $12 billion a day. That is a staggering rate of spending. We cannot continue to manage our Nation's finances like this.

The budget proposed by the Obama administration several weeks ago is no more responsible than these other bills. It spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows much too much.

I have mentioned these numbers before, but they are worth repeating. The President's proposal will double the publicly held national debt to more than $15 trillion. Annual spending would leap from $24,000 per household to $32,000. This plan would also raise taxes by $1.4 trillion over 10 years.

Those are not my numbers. I didn't make them up. The people hired by the Democrats, the Congressional Budget Office, picked by Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi and one member of the Finance Committee and one member of the Ways and Means Committee, Senator Baucus and Congressman Rangel--those are the people who picked CBO's Director, and those are his numbers.

The increase in debt is also staggering. The President's proposal would double the debt held by the public in 5 years and nearly triple it over 10. In fact, the proposal would create more debt under every previous President from George Washington to include George W. Bush.

I know today we are not voting on the Obama proposal. However, I still think it is completely reasonable to discuss it. This proposal gives us a great insight into how President Obama views Government. We see he wants to greatly expand it. He also no longer is a member of the legislative branch. However, he is the leader of the party that controls the legislative branch. We know he will have influence on how legislation is written.

One of the most troubling aspects of the document before us is the inclusion of reconciliation instructions for health care and education legislation. I don't want to talk about arcane Senate procedure today. However, this is an abuse of the process. Reconciliation is supposed to be used to return money to the taxpayers and the Treasury. It makes legislation that accomplishes this much easier to pass. These instructions require a total savings of $2 billion. This is absurd because we know health care reform and education legislation will cost much more than $2 billion. In fact, as we know from the numbers I mentioned above, the administration has spent $2 billion every 4

hours or so. This will not be any kind of significant deficit reduction.

Another worrying feature of this budget is the assault on small businesses. President Obama admits that 70 percent of job growth will come from small businesses. So why does this budget tax them out of existence?

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim they are only raising taxes on a handful of small businesses, but they ignore the fact that they are hurting the businesses that are responsible for two- thirds of small business jobs. Small business jobs are key to our economic recovery. But look at what the failed policies of this Congress have done for small businesses.

The so-called stimulus bill that added over $1 trillion to our national debt spends less than one-half of 1 percent--one-half of 1 percent--on small businesses. Also, after mortgaging our future on the TARP bailout, 70 percent of the large banks have actually decreased their small business lending. Now these small businesses that have been devastated by the economy and cannot get a loan to make payroll are going to be hit with a massive tax increase. How are these small business owners going to be able to hire even one more worker? This budget is an assault on small businesses. It taxes too much, and it should be defeated.

I would like to mention energy policy before I conclude my remarks. Throughout this year's budget debate, we have talked a lot about energy, particularly a proposed cap-and-trade tax proposal. At a time when our Nation's energy needs are continuing to grow, we should turn our focus on how best to meet those needs while creating jobs instead of taxing American families. If we act too rapidly by imposing carbon taxes, all Americans will pay the cost through dramatic increases in utility prices. If enacted, a cap-and-trade revenue program would institute one of the largest tax increases in American history. Every American will pay a sales tax whenever they turn the light switch on or start their car. This tax will be untargeted and regressive. Even our poorest citizens will be hit by this tax. This is a dangerous policy, and I am startled by how much support it has received from this current administration.

So much for the President's promise not to tax anyone making less than $250,000 per year. Maybe that is because he knows he needs more money than he can raise by taxing just the rich to pay for all of his plans to make Government even a bigger part of ordinary Americans' lives.

As I have outlined above, this budget has some problems. It spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of fiscal responsibility by voting against this piece of legislation.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the order of business? Are we in morning business?

Mr. President, I have a statement that will take about 15 minutes on Governor Sebelius.

Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the nomination of Governor Kathleen Sebelius to serve as our next Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. I will not be able to support Governor Sebelius's nomination to this position and will be voting no. I wish to take a few minutes to explain my opposition to her confirmation.

First, I have always been pro life. I believe that life begins at conception and that every life is precious. I believe that we, as a society, have a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. That

is why I am so strongly opposed to abortion. Abortion kills the most fragile, most vulnerable, and most needy among us. These children cannot defend themselves, so they desperately need us to protect them.

To me, abortion is about whether defenseless babies have a right to live. The answer, clearly, is, yes, they do. I don't understand how people can come away with any other conclusion than that one. Unfortunately, too many people do. According to the National Right to Life, there have been more than 49 million abortions in the United States since 1973, with about 1.2 million in 2005, the year they have the most recent data. These numbers are staggering and saddening.

I cannot support the nomination of someone to be the leader of our Health and Human Services Department who does not respect human life. That is why I will be voting against Governor Sebelius. Her record as Governor of Kansas on abortion issues is dismal. She has vetoed multiple pieces of legislation passed by the Kansas legislature dealing with abortion, including bills in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2008. In fact, last week she vetoed yet another bill.

These were commonsense bills that I think most Americans could agree with, such as creating standards for abortion clinics that require clean and sterilized rooms and equipment, counseling before and after abortion, and medical screening for patients. Several of the bills dealt with changes to the Kansas late-term abortion laws, including one vetoed last week. That bill required certain information to be reported to the State when doctors perform late-term abortions, including the specific medical reason the abortion was performed. Another bill would have given women about to undergo an abortion the opportunity to listen to the baby's heartbeat and see an ultrasound of their child, along with several other provisions. Governor Sebelius vetoed all of these bills.

I am also greatly concerned about Governor Sebelius's relationship with Dr. George Tiller, an abortion doctor from Wichita, who specializes in late-term abortion. On Dr. Tiller's Web site he says that his clinic has ``more experience in late-term abortion services over 24 weeks than anyone else practicing in the Western Hemisphere, Europe, or Australia.'' This is not something to be proud of.

I know that pro-abortion supporters like to make the argument that unborn babies are a clump of cells and not yet a human being. They couldn't be more wrong. These unborn babies are developing, growing, can feel pain, and certainly have the will to live. Let me briefly give a description of the development milestones that babies reach as they grow to 24 weeks. This is according to the Mayo Clinic's Web site--the Mayo Clinic: At 5 weeks, the heart begins to beat. At 8 weeks, eyelids are forming, along with the ears, upper nose, fingers, lips, and toes. At 9 weeks, the baby begins to move. At 12 weeks, fingernails and toenails are forming. At 16 weeks, the baby's eyes are sensitive to light. At 18 weeks, the ears start working and the baby can be even startled by loud noises. At 19 weeks, the kidneys are working. At 20 weeks, most mothers can feel their babies move. At 22 weeks, taste buds are forming. At 23 weeks, the baby begins to practice breathing so she will be ready once she is born. At 24 weeks, the baby weighs about a pound and a half, has footprints, and fingerprints, and starts to have regular waking and sleep cycles.

The Web site says that babies formed at 24 weeks have a 50 percent chance of survival. And this is where Dr. Tiller steps in and aborts the baby. How can you hear these development milestones and believe these babies are expendable; that these babies' lives are less important than someone else or that they simply can be killed and thrown away?

Think of the difference between two babies at 24 weeks--one is wanted, one is not. For the child born early, whose parents love and want her, she would be rushed to a neonatal intensive care unit after delivery, where she would be given round-the-clock intensive medical care until she was big and strong enough to go home. Every day in this country, premature babies cling to life and fight for survival. I think most of the parents of premature babies would tell you that their child's will to live is courageous and inspiring.

For the poor babies who have parents who choose to abort them, their life is about to end. According to Planned Parenthood, a procedure called dilation and evacuation--or D and E--is generally performed in pregnancies over 16 weeks. Let me read how the National Right to Life organization describes this procedure:

Forceps with sharp metal jaws are used to grasp parts of

the developing baby, which are then twisted and torn away.

This continues until the entire baby is removed from the

womb. Because the baby's skull has often hardened to bone by

this time, the skull must sometimes be compressed or crushed

to facilitate removal.

That is disgusting, and anyone who tries to justify it should be ashamed. Abortion and the callous disregard for human life in this country is a real tragedy. George Tiller's work greatly concerns me. Governor Sebelius's ties to George Tiller greatly concern me. The late- term abortion doctor has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Governor Sebelius, and she has even honored him at the Governor's mansion in Kansas.

Governor Sebelius hasn't always been upfront about their relationship as well. In answering questions before the Finance Committee, Governor Sebelius originally said that Tiller had donated about $12,000 to her. A few days later, she had to go back to revise that amount because somewhere an additional $23,000 in donations from the abortion doctor had been overlooked and not accounted for. While she said this was an inadvertent omission, it seems to me that you would remember that sum of money from one of your most controversial donors.

I certainly realize that President Obama would not nominate someone to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services who is pro life. However, Governor Sebelius's record on right-to-life issues along with her ties to the late-term abortion Dr. Tiller cannot be overlooked. The leader of the Department of Health and Human Services should be balanced and reasonable. There is nothing in Governor Sebelius's record that makes me think she is either when it comes to protecting the life of the unborn.

The second major reason I am opposing this nomination is that I don't believe Governor Sebelius has the experience to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS is an enormous bureaucracy, responsible for everything from the Medicare Program to the National Institutes of Health, to the Food and Drug Administration. The Department has 11 operating divisions, over 64,000 employees, and a budget of $707 billion. According to HHS's Web site, it allocates more grant dollars than all of the other agencies combined. This is a tremendous responsibility, and the Department needs someone with hands- on experience.

As Governor of Kansas, she appointed someone to run their health and human services department and was not directly responsible for the day- to-day operation. As Congress considers major health care reform legislation this year, we need someone with extensive experience in setting health policy for the entire country.

I fundamentally disagree with Governor Sebelius on life issues, and I do not believe she has the experience to lead such a large department. I will be voting no on her nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Kentucky students who have received corporate-sponsored National Merit Scholarships. The National Merit Scholarship Program presents this award to over 1,000 high school seniors and I am very proud that eight recipients of this award reside in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The corporate-sponsored scholarships are a partnership between the National Merit Scholarship Corporation and local companies who wish to support students in their communities. In order for a student to receive a corporate-sponsored scholarship the student must advance to the finalist level of the National Merit Scholarship competition and meet the criteria set forth by their individual corporate sponsor.

The eight students from Kentucky who received this award are Meaghan M. Sanders of Assumption High School, Austin C. Brownlow of Kentucky Country Day, Allan J. Hsiao of DuPont Manual High School, Victoria Greenstone of Sacred Heart Academy, Matthew R. Seabold of St. Xavier High School, Elliott W. Rosenberg and Kyle R. Rosenberg of Paul Laurence Dunbar High School, and Matthew S. Miller of Beechwood High School.

I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating these students on their outstanding achievement. It is students like these who will provide Kentucky and the United States with our leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. President, today I am honored to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating seven of my constituents who are recipients of the distinguished Presidential Unit Citation. This rare and prestigious citation is given to military units for their outstanding bravery, gallantry and service as well as the unit's performance in accomplishing its mission under extreme and hazardous conditions. In January 2009 this heroic award was conferred upon the Alpha Troop, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment for service in the Republic of South Vietnam.

The individuals who received this award include Mr. Dale H. Hollabaugh, Mr. James E. Jackson, Mr. Joseph D. Boone, Mr. Gregory R. Stumbo, Mr. Kenneth Mosley, Mr. Clifton T. Geerde, and Mr. Kenneth E. Fulkerson. In 1970, in War Zone C during the Vietnam conflict, the Alpha Troop, First Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment performed heroically through a series of combat missions over several months. After a 5-year review by the Department of Defense, the unit was awarded this citation. It is an incredible honor to be a recipient of this award and I am humbled to be able to speak of these brave individuals.

We will never forget the brave citizens who fought to protect our freedoms during this time. It is with great honor that I recognize these citizens for what they have done and I know that their families and friends are proud to be a part of their lives.

I would like to thank these individuals for their contributions to the state of Kentucky and to the United States, and I wish them well in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise today to give my remarks on the nomination of Christopher Hill to be United States Ambassador to Iraq. Unfortunately, I cannot support this nomination. There are two principal reasons for my opposition. The first is his inexperience in the Middle East and with the type of challenges provided by Iraq. The second is his actions and behavior during negotiations with North Korea.

It is generally accepted that career diplomats will serve in many very different parts of the globe. However, the position of Ambassador to Iraq is arguably the most important diplomatic post in the world to the United States. To see an example of just the type of person suited to this job one only need to look to the most recent U.S. Ambassador to Iraq: Ryan Crocker. Mr. Crocker previously served as Ambassador to Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, and

Lebanon. He had served in Iraq previously and was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. He is also fluent in Arabic.

Ambassador Hill has none of these credentials. He has spent nearly his entire career concentrating on European affairs, until recently shifting to the Far East to concentrate on issues regarding the Korean peninsula. He has no prior postings or assignments that would give him experience with the Middle East nor that would give him any knowledge of U.S. counterinsurgency efforts there. As the United States begins to draw down the military presence in Iraq, the efforts of our diplomats there will become even more important. We need a more experienced head of these efforts than we have been given in Christopher Hill.

Within Ambassador Hill's experience to date, I have severe concerns in the manner in which he conducted himself as chief U.S. negotiator in the disarmament talks with North Korea. Not only do I find his actions unprofessional but question his negotiating tactics and the concessions he made. Records show he engaged in evasive and unprofessional activities, including sidelining key officials at the State Department and breaking commitments made before congressional committees.

Ambassador Hill also made significant concessions to North Korea during his disarmament talks that I believe were diplomatically unsound and imprudent. I firmly believe they put the United States at a disadvantage in our efforts to move forward with this rogue Communist regime. Removing North Korea from our list of state sponsors of terrorism along with lifting our sanctions in return for a mere ``good faith'' declaration of their nuclear weapons program was unsound and irresponsible. True to form, North Korea, through a symbolic process of smoke and mirrors, only partially disclosed their weapons program giving the United States access to information that was already known throughout the international community. North Korea's recent decision to abandon the six party talks and restart their nuclear weapons program only highlights our failed diplomacy and Ambassador Hill's shortcomings.

As we move forward with one of the most diplomatically sensitive missions in American history I do not believe that we can afford to make any mistakes. While Ambassador Hill has a distinguished career of diplomatic service, I do not believe that he is the right nominee for this position. Thus, I respectfully oppose his nomination.

Madam President, this is a transparency amendment that allows the Fed, forces them, to reveal what banks have received over $2 trillion in assistance. That is what the amendment says. That is what it does.

What are the four amendments, please?

I have about 15 minutes.

I am going to talk about two amendments, but I am going to wait to offer them through the vote-a-rama tomorrow.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2010 budget. I also plan to discuss two amendments--Nos. 817 and 818--which I would like to see considered.

As a member of the Budget Committee, I spoke on this budget last week during the committee consideration. I was unable to support it then, and unless truly major changes are made on the Senate floor this week, I will not be able to support it as it comes up for a vote.

Since the President first gave us a preview of his plan, we have heard a lot about this year's budget. I have found it to be very troubling. The budget proposed by the Obama administration is unworkable, and I think everyone knows that. It spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.

The numbers in the President's proposal were appalling to anyone who believes in any kind of fiscal restraint. It got even worse 2 weeks ago, when the Congressional Budget Office predicted

the numbers used by the administration were far too optimistic. The President's proposal would double the publicly held national debt to more than $15 trillion. Annual spending would leap from $24,000 per household to about $32,000 per household. This plan would also raise taxes by $1.4 trillion over 10 years. The increase in debt is also staggering. The President's proposal would double the debt held by the public in 5 years and nearly triple it over 10 years.

In fact, the proposal would create more debt than every previous President from George Washington to George W. Bush. With numbers such as that, it is not surprising that the authors of this budget resolution before us today had to make some changes.

While I applaud the efforts of Chairman Conrad to attempt to rein in some of the worst aspects of the administration's budget proposal, it appears we may only have an ``Obama lite'' version before us. In fact, Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, tells us the two versions are 98 percent the same. The budget on the floor still has the same problems and, in some cases, new problems.

President Obama promised a new era of transparency in Government. This is one reason why he submitted a 10-year budget proposal. However, the proposal before us is only a 5-year projection. Also, the President's budget assumed that Congress would continue to patch the alternative minimum tax, which digs deeper and deeper into the middle class each year. This budget assumes it will be fixed for only the first 3 years of this 5-year plan. Everyone here knows we are going to have to take care of those other 2 years, as we should. However, it looks like we still have more tax increase here.

It defies logic that this budget targets tax hikes on the very people who are good at creating jobs. We know that 70 percent of all job growth in the United States--when we had it--came from small business. This budget penalizes the people who are responsible for two-thirds of the small business jobs. One of the most basic economic principles is that if you want less of an activity, you tax it more. Well, we must want less job creation.

Maybe we only want to create jobs for Government bureaucrats who spend other people's money and our grandchildren's and children's money.

As I have outlined, this budget has many other problems. It spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting changes that would make this a responsible and fair piece of legislation.

I also wish to take a few minutes to talk about the two amendments I will be introducing later in the marathon we have tomorrow. The first is especially important for many of our seniors because it deals with taxes on Social Security benefits. The amendment I will be offering sets up a deficit-neutral reserve fund to repeal the 1993 increase in the income tax on Social Security benefits. I brought this issue before the House and before this Chamber before. In fact, earlier this year on a stimulus bill, I offered an amendment to repeal this unfair tax for just 1 year. That amendment failed.

With this amendment, I am taking a different tack and using a deficit-neutral reserve fund to repeal the 1993 Social Security tax increase completely. This should be familiar to the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, since he offered a similar amendment using a deficit-neutral reserve fund during the budget consideration last year. I remind my colleagues that his amendment passed last year by a vote of 53 yeas to 46 nays.

When the Social Security program was created, benefits were not taxed at all. However, in 1983, Congress changed the rules of the game by passing legislation to taxing up to 50 percent of a senior's Social Security benefit if their income was over $25,000 for a single individual or $32,000 for a couple. In 1993, as I sat on the Ways and Means Committee at the time, Congress felt that taxing 50 percent of benefits wasn't good enough.

That year, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, a bill that allows 85 percent of a senior's Social Security benefits to be taxed if their income was above $34,000 for a single taxpayer or $44,000 for a couple. The additional money this tax raises doesn't even go to help Social Security's solvency. It goes, instead, to the Medicare Part A Program. I opposed this tax increase then, and I oppose it today, because 14 million seniors are hit by an 85-percent tax on their Social Security benefits.

On one hand, we tell seniors to plan and save for retirement; on the other hand, we tax them for doing just that. This amendment puts the Senate on record that this 85-percent tax tier would be eliminated, and the maximum amount of Social Security benefits that could be taxed would be 50 percent.

If Congress passed legislation to do this, millions of seniors would be able to keep more of their Social Security benefits. I hope my colleagues can support this amendment when it comes up for consideration.

I am offering another amendment to pave the way for relieving taxpayers who have suffered devastating capital losses during these troubled economic times. Many taxpayers have been forced to sell their homes, stocks or any kind of capital asset at a loss. Our constituents will be stunned to learn they can only deduct $3,000 of those losses from their adjusted gross income. The $3,000 limit was set in 1976, when tax writers seemed to be ignorant about the impact of inflation. That limit is ridiculous in today's dollars.

My amendment creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing the capital loss deduction. If it helps struggling taxpayers, we have to do it because if we raised that deduction from $3,000 and adjusted it for inflation, it would be over what I propose--at $15,000, which you could deduct from your adjusted gross. Prominent economists have noted that by eliminating some of the downside risks of investing, increasing the capital loss deduction will stimulate investment and economic growth.

This amendment is a winner for taxpayers and a winner for our economy at a time when they both need some wins.

I yield the floor.