Floor Statements

Mr. President, last week the President said the private sector is ``doing fine.'' Well, the fact is the private sector isn't doing fine and the President's comments make me wonder what private sector he may be talking about.

Since he took office, we have had 40 straight months of unemployment of over 8 percent and more than 23 million Americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for a job altogether. Last month's job report said the economy added only 69,000 jobs--far below what forecasters had predicted. That is the Obama economy, and it is not doing fine.

With the debt the size of our GDP, the President's recent push for even more government spending is equally out of touch. Taking more money out of the private sector, out of the hands of businesses and job creators or borrowing it to pay for yet another stimulus has consequences. We need to reduce the size and scope of government,

not expand it. We need to put in place a progrowth policy to allow the private sector to flourish.

That is why Republicans have been calling for years for comprehensive tax reform and for both parties to sit down and begin the process of reforming entitlements. That is how we will get our fiscal house in order and help the economy grow as well. But without Presidential leadership, it simply can't happen.

Controlling only one Chamber, Republicans in Congress can only do so much. The Republican-led House has passed budgets while, for 3\1/2\ years, the Democratic-led Senate has refused to do so. And they have passed 28 job-related bills over in the House that our Democratic friends here in the Senate refuse to take up. For our part, Senate Republicans will continue to pursue a pro-jobs agenda, and I encourage our Democratic friends to join us before the administration's spending and debt spree forces us into the sort of economic spiral we currently see facing folks over across the Atlantic. They can start by working with Republicans on our commonsense amendments to the farm bill.

The President may think the private sector is doing fine or that the government isn't big enough, but those in rural America are definitely not doing fine. The biggest threat to farmers in Kentucky and across America is this administration's job-killing regulations. That is why Republicans are calling for votes on commonsense amendments that would either eliminate or prevent future job-killing regulations from going into effect which would provide the necessary relief for American farmers and give a boost to rural America in these challenging economic times.

Last year, while visiting Atkinson, IL, the President blew off one farmer when he asked about policy regulations. The President said, ``Don't always believe what you hear.'' Either the President doesn't know what his administration is doing or he doesn't want the American people to know it is his policies that are hurting farmers all across the country. It is either one or the other.

Here are a few examples of this administration's policies that are suffocating the American agricultural industry and the Republican amendments we want the Senate to take up.

Last fall, the Department of Labor attempted to regulate the relationship, believe it or not, shared between parents and their kids on family farms. The proposed rule would have prohibited those under age 16 from manual labor such as stall cleaning, using a shovel, and using a battery-operated screwdriver. Many people in my State consider this the type of manual labor that is widely referred to as Saturday morning chores. Senator Thune is offering an amendment that would require the Department of Labor to consult with Congress before implementing such regulations.

The EPA wants to lift the ban that prevents Washington, DC, bureaucrats from regulating nonnavigable waters. The expanded Federal jurisdiction would bring the EPA and their redtape and taxes into the backyards of millions--literally millions--of Americans. The economic impact would be disastrous.

Congress passed a navigable ban to protect families, small businesses, and farmers from Washington bureaucrats trying to seize control of their water or their land. The U.S. Supreme Court twice affirmed the limits of Federal authority under the Clean Water Act. But, apparently, the EPA believes they are above the other two branches of government, and Senators Paul and Barrasso are offering two amendments that would stop the EPA in its tracks.

The EPA is considering a regulation that would require farm and ranch families to take as yet undefined measures to lower the amount of dust that occurs naturally--I am not kidding--lower the amount of dust that occurs naturally and is transmitted into the air due to agricultural production activities. It is hard to go through this and maintain one's composure. These activities include such things as combining, haying, moving cattle, tilling a field, or even driving down a gravel road. Failure to do so would result in a substantial fine. Senator Johanns is offering an amendment that would prevent the EPA from issuing any new rule that regulates agricultural dust. I kid you not, they want to regulate agricultural dust.

Finally, Senator Crapo and Senator Johanns are offering an amendment that would help farmers across the country continue to manage their unique business risks associated with their day-to-day operations. The amendment would prevent unnecessarily diverting capital away from job creation and investing in their businesses in a way that was never intended by the sponsors of the Dodd-Frank Act. Preventing this unnecessary burden would promote economic growth, protect farmers and businesses, and ultimately help save American jobs.

In these extremely difficult economic times, rural America is already struggling to get by and it simply can't be bothered by an overreaching Federal Government that has literally no idea of the unintended consequences of its policies.

These five commonsense Republican amendments I have outlined, along with several others, put an end to numerous job-killing regulations, and each of these amendments deserves a vote.

I now wish to address another matter.

(The remarks of Mr. McConnell and Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 43 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mr. Delford McKnight of Laurel County, KY, for his lifetime of contributions in business as well as his many years of public service to the State of Kentucky. Delford McKnight is the founder of McKnight & Associates, a successful industrial construction company that built and renovated numerous structures in Laurel and surrounding counties.

Born in 1946, Mr. McKnight grew up on a small family farm 6 miles from London, KY. He attended Bush Elementary School and Bush High School, where he gained an interest in agriculture and construction. Taking classes in agriculture and woodworking, as well as other college prep classes, he earned the title ``Boy Most Likely to Succeed'' from his senior class.

After graduating high school, Delford went on to attend the University of Kentucky for 1 year before leaving to pursue a career in construction. In 1964, he married his first wife, Helen Owens McKnight. The couple moved to Lexington, where they ran a local Laundromat and managed an apartment complex. On the side, Delford also worked for a construction company. In 1965, the two moved back to their hometown, where Mr. McKnight took a job with the Hacker Brothers construction firm.

Three years later, Delford opened his first construction business, McKnight Construction and Blueprint Company, in London, KY, today known as McKnight & Associates. This construction firm is responsible for building and renovating many of the buildings in the community, including the Clay County Vocational School, the Board of Education building in Manchester, and the first building of the Laurel Campus of Somerset Community College. Along with these, Mr. McKnight also built North Laurel Middle School, as well as Hunter Hills Elementary School and the new Bush Elementary School. In the early 1970s, McKnight & Associates got the contract for the Kentucky Fried Chicken building in London, and later renovated Sanders Cafe and the Corbin KFC.

Aside from his construction work, Mr. McKnight also became involved with several other business ventures. He was the first to bring the idea of self-storage units to southeastern Kentucky, opening the first self-storage facility there in 1976. He also founded Lee-Mart Rent-to- Own Stores, which later sold to Aaron's, Inc., and he co-founded Cumberland Valley Office Suppliers, Inc., a retail office supply store. After becoming involved with the London-Laurel County Tourist Commission, Delford developed the idea of the ``World Chicken Festival'' in 1989 to highlight Colonel Sanders's cooking worldwide, a festival that is still joyously celebrated to this day.

Mr. McKnight has held many leadership positions throughout Kentucky. He is a past secretary of the Laurel County Chamber of Commerce, the first president of the Southeastern Kentucky Home Builders Association--from which he received the Time Award, and the current director of First National Bank & Trust in London, Kentucky. He also served as a

member of the Cumberland Private Industry Council, the Cumberland Valley ADD Board, and the London-Laurel County Tourist Commission. Mr. McKnight serves as a member and chairman of the 13th Regional Vocational Advisory Council and was a 25-year member on the Corbin Tri- County Joint Industrial Development Authority. He was also honored by the Laurel County Homecoming Festival for his service to the community in 2007.

In 1989, Delford completed construction on his ``dream executive home'' in London, Kentucky, and he recently completed the construction and landscaping on his second home in Venice, Florida. He has recently quietly retired, although he still helps with management decisions regarding his investments and business interest. Delford has been married to Lottie Gail since January 2001 after his first wife, Helen, died of cancer. Delford and Lottie Gail have a combined family of 5 children and 12 grandchildren.

Delford is still an active member of the Laurel community today, serving as a deacon and Sunday school teacher at United Baptist Church, a member of the Laurel County Chamber of Commerce, a member of the Laurel County Vocational Advisory Council, and a member of the London- Laurel County Tourist Commission.

At this time I ask my U.S. Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Delford McKnight for his many contributions to the Laurel County community and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. An article from the Laurel County-area publication the Sentinel-Echo recently highlighted Mr. McKnight's success and accomplishments. I ask unanimous consent that said article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss events in the country of Burma. Every year since 2003, I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to introduce the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, and every year introduction of this bill has been accompanied by a somber message to the Senate: that reform in Burma is nowhere in sight. That is what I have said every year going back to 2003.

This year, I am pleased to say that though the bill's language is the same, the message is far different, as is the legal effect of the legislation. In a remarkable turnabout of events over the past 18 months, Burma has made dramatic changes for the better. In response to these developments, the administration recently decided it will ease many of the economic sanctions against Burma through exercise of its waiver authority. As a result, this year's Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would effectively renew only a handful of the sanctions against the regime and would preserve the administration's flexibility to use its waiver authority.

In 2008, the Burmese junta put in place a new Constitution--a very flawed document. It does not ensure civilian control of the military. In fact, the charter may only be amended if over 75 percent of the Parliament vote in favor of such changes and one-fourth of the seats in Parliament are reserved for the military.

In November 2010, Burma held an election under this new charter, which was universally derided as being neither free nor fair. The party of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi--the National League for Democracy--refused to participate due to the unfairness of the electoral process.

Restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly were manifest, and there was a prohibition against political prisoners, such as Suu Kyi, running for office. Not surprisingly, the junta-supported party won over three-quarters of the nonappointed parliamentary seats. The new government took office on April 1, 2011.

Shortly after this seemingly unpromising election, some signs of change began to appear. Suu Kyi was freed after years under house arrest. By July 2011 she was permitted to leave Rangoon for the first time since her release. In August she visited the new capital, Naypyitaw, and met with the new President, Thein Sein.

In September 2011 the government lifted its prohibition against major news Web sites and dropped anti-Western slogans from state publications. That same month the regime announced it would suspend action on a controversial dam to be constructed by China in Kachin State. The project was strongly opposed by democracy advocates and ethnic leaders.

As part of its reforms, the legislature enacted a bill that permitted Suu Kyi to participate in the April 1, 2012, by-election and made it possible for her party to reregister, after having technically lost its party status for boycotting the November 2010 balloting.

In January of 2012 a score of political prisoners were released and a preliminary cease-fire agreement was reached with the Karen, appearing to end one of the longest running ethnic disputes in the world.

In April 2012 Burma held a by-election to replace lawmakers who had assumed Cabinet roles. For the first time since 1990, the NLD participated in the election. Of the 45 seats that were open, the NLD contested 44 and won 43.

Suu Kyi herself won a seat in what was clearly a dramatic victory for the opposition. This spring, for the first time in a quarter of a century, Suu Kyi was granted a passport and traveled outside Burma. Thus, in a mere 18 months, Suu Kyi has gone from political prisoner to Member of Parliament. That in and of itself is a remarkable change, and it reflects more broadly the wide-ranging reforms that have occurred in the country.

In response to the Burmese Government's efforts, on May 17 the State Department announced that it would undertake a number of administrative steps to ease sanctions against Burma. These include removing both the investment ban and the financial services ban against Burma, except in transactions involving bad actors. In addition to suspending certain economic sanctions, the administration announced that it would exchange full Ambassadors with Naypyitaw.

Mr. President, I support each of these steps taken by the State Department.

What caused the Burmese Government to initiate these democratic reforms? It is hard to know for certain, but sanctions seem to have played an important part in bringing the government around. No country likes being

viewed as a pariah, and the Burmese regime seems no different.

When I visited Burma back in January, the one thing I heard from all the government officials with whom I met--the President, the Foreign Minister, the Speaker of the Lower House--they all said: We want the sanctions removed.

Suu Kyi herself publicly stated a few months ago that ``to those who ask whether or not sanctions have been effective, I would say yes, very, very confidently, because this government is always asking for sanctions to be removed. . . . So, sanctions have been effective. If sanctions had not been effective this would not be such an important issue for them.'' All of that is from Suu Kyi herself.

So some Senators may reasonably ask why are we moving this sanctions bill again if Burma has made such dramatically positive steps. Well, there are several reasons. Let me lay them out.

First, the Burmese Government still has not met all the necessary conditions to justify a complete--a complete--repeal of all existing sanctions. Despite the unmistakable progress made by the Burmese Government, now is not the time to end our ability either to encourage further government reform or to revisit sanctions if that became necessary. As Suu Kyi herself has cautioned, the situation in Burma is ``not irreversible.'' Serious challenges need to be addressed.

Violence in Kachin State remains a serious problem. Numerous political prisoners remain behind bars. The constitution is still completely undemocratic. And the regime's relationship with North Korea, especially when it comes to arms sales with Pyongyang, remains an issue of grave concern.

As I noted, renewing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would leave intact the import ban against Burmese goods, thus maintaining leverage the executive branch can utilize to help prompt further reform. Reauthorizing this measure would permit the executive branch, in consultation with Congress, to calibrate sanctions as necessary, thus preserving its flexibility.

Second, the renewal of this sanctions bill will not affect--will not affect--the administration's current efforts to ease sanctions as announced on May 17. Let me repeat that renewing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act will leave undisturbed the process for suspending sanctions announced 3 weeks ago. In part for this reason, the State Department supports renewal of this measure. In fact, a vote for reauthorization of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act should be seen as a vote in support of the administration's easing of sanctions and a vote to support reform efforts in Burma.

As a practical matter, renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would entail, No. 1, extending for another year the ban against Burmese imports; No. 2, continuing authority for financial services sanctions but leaving in place the authority the administration needs to proceed with the easing--the easing--of such restrictions; and No. 3, leaving untouched the administration's ability to ease the investment ban, which is part of a separate bill.

Finally, renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act has continued bipartisan support in Congress and the support of Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition in Burma.

There are, unfortunately, too few issues where the administration has sought to work with Congress in a bipartisan manner--mighty few, in fact--but on the issue of sanctions reauthorization, the State Department and I are in full agreement. I also know that my longstanding partner on Burma on the other side of the aisle, Senator Feinstein, shares my sentiments about reauthorizing this measure. As for Burma's democratic opposition, I spoke with Suu Kyi just a few days ago. She told me she believes the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act should be renewed.

If Burma stays on the path it seems to be on to reform, it will require significant help in reforming its economy and in developing business practices that encourage enduring foreign direct investment and corporate responsibility. A great deal of work must be done as Burma looks ahead to hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2014. For the first time in a half a century, Burma seems--seems--to be on the right path to reform, and reauthorization of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act places the United States squarely on the side of reform and of reformers.

For the reasons I have laid out, I believe a renewal of this measure is the right step to take. Burma has made great strides over the past 18 months, and Congress should recognize those strides. At the same time, Congress should not be fully satisfied with recent reforms, as much more work remains to be done.

In closing, I am introducing the renewal of the Freedom and Democracy Act, originally passed in 2003, for myself; Senator Feinstein, with whom I have worked on this over the years and referred to in my remarks; Senator John McCain, who has been very active in this area and met with Suu Kyi this past year; Senator Durbin; and Senator Collins, who had the opportunity to meet with Suu Kyi just the week before last--all of whom are active and interested in this issue.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nevada.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss events in the country of Burma. Every year since 2003, I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to introduce the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, and every year introduction of this bill has been accompanied by a somber message to the Senate: that reform in Burma is nowhere in sight. That is what I have said every year going back to 2003.

This year, I am pleased to say that though the bill's language is the same, the message is far different, as is the legal effect of the legislation. In a remarkable turnabout of events over the past 18 months, Burma has made dramatic changes for the better. In response to these developments, the administration recently decided it will ease many of the economic sanctions against Burma through exercise of its waiver authority. As a result, this year's Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would effectively renew only a handful of the sanctions against the regime and would preserve the administration's flexibility to use its waiver authority.

In 2008, the Burmese junta put in place a new Constitution--a very flawed document. It does not ensure civilian control of the military. In fact, the charter may only be amended if over 75 percent of the Parliament vote in favor of such changes and one-fourth of the seats in Parliament are reserved for the military.

In November 2010, Burma held an election under this new charter, which was universally derided as being neither free nor fair. The party of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi--the National League for Democracy--refused to participate due to the unfairness of the electoral process.

Restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly were manifest, and there was a prohibition against political prisoners, such as Suu Kyi, running for office. Not surprisingly, the junta-supported party won over three-quarters of the nonappointed parliamentary seats. The new government took office on April 1, 2011.

Shortly after this seemingly unpromising election, some signs of change began to appear. Suu Kyi was freed after years under house arrest. By July 2011 she was permitted to leave Rangoon for the first time since her release. In August she visited the new capital, Naypyitaw, and met with the new President, Thein Sein.

In September 2011 the government lifted its prohibition against major news Web sites and dropped anti-Western slogans from state publications. That same month the regime announced it would suspend action on a controversial dam to be constructed by China in Kachin State. The project was strongly opposed by democracy advocates and ethnic leaders.

As part of its reforms, the legislature enacted a bill that permitted Suu Kyi to participate in the April 1, 2012, by-election and made it possible for her party to reregister, after having technically lost its party status for boycotting the November 2010 balloting.

In January of 2012 a score of political prisoners were released and a preliminary cease-fire agreement was reached with the Karen, appearing to end one of the longest running ethnic disputes in the world.

In April 2012 Burma held a by-election to replace lawmakers who had assumed Cabinet roles. For the first time since 1990, the NLD participated in the election. Of the 45 seats that were open, the NLD contested 44 and won 43.

Suu Kyi herself won a seat in what was clearly a dramatic victory for the opposition. This spring, for the first time in a quarter of a century, Suu Kyi was granted a passport and traveled outside Burma. Thus, in a mere 18 months, Suu Kyi has gone from political prisoner to Member of Parliament. That in and of itself is a remarkable change, and it reflects more broadly the wide-ranging reforms that have occurred in the country.

In response to the Burmese Government's efforts, on May 17 the State Department announced that it would undertake a number of administrative steps to ease sanctions against Burma. These include removing both the investment ban and the financial services ban against Burma, except in transactions involving bad actors. In addition to suspending certain economic sanctions, the administration announced that it would exchange full Ambassadors with Naypyitaw.

Mr. President, I support each of these steps taken by the State Department.

What caused the Burmese Government to initiate these democratic reforms? It is hard to know for certain, but sanctions seem to have played an important part in bringing the government around. No country likes being

viewed as a pariah, and the Burmese regime seems no different.

When I visited Burma back in January, the one thing I heard from all the government officials with whom I met--the President, the Foreign Minister, the Speaker of the Lower House--they all said: We want the sanctions removed.

Suu Kyi herself publicly stated a few months ago that ``to those who ask whether or not sanctions have been effective, I would say yes, very, very confidently, because this government is always asking for sanctions to be removed. . . . So, sanctions have been effective. If sanctions had not been effective this would not be such an important issue for them.'' All of that is from Suu Kyi herself.

So some Senators may reasonably ask why are we moving this sanctions bill again if Burma has made such dramatically positive steps. Well, there are several reasons. Let me lay them out.

First, the Burmese Government still has not met all the necessary conditions to justify a complete--a complete--repeal of all existing sanctions. Despite the unmistakable progress made by the Burmese Government, now is not the time to end our ability either to encourage further government reform or to revisit sanctions if that became necessary. As Suu Kyi herself has cautioned, the situation in Burma is ``not irreversible.'' Serious challenges need to be addressed.

Violence in Kachin State remains a serious problem. Numerous political prisoners remain behind bars. The constitution is still completely undemocratic. And the regime's relationship with North Korea, especially when it comes to arms sales with Pyongyang, remains an issue of grave concern.

As I noted, renewing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would leave intact the import ban against Burmese goods, thus maintaining leverage the executive branch can utilize to help prompt further reform. Reauthorizing this measure would permit the executive branch, in consultation with Congress, to calibrate sanctions as necessary, thus preserving its flexibility.

Second, the renewal of this sanctions bill will not affect--will not affect--the administration's current efforts to ease sanctions as announced on May 17. Let me repeat that renewing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act will leave undisturbed the process for suspending sanctions announced 3 weeks ago. In part for this reason, the State Department supports renewal of this measure. In fact, a vote for reauthorization of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act should be seen as a vote in support of the administration's easing of sanctions and a vote to support reform efforts in Burma.

As a practical matter, renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would entail, No. 1, extending for another year the ban against Burmese imports; No. 2, continuing authority for financial services sanctions but leaving in place the authority the administration needs to proceed with the easing--the easing--of such restrictions; and No. 3, leaving untouched the administration's ability to ease the investment ban, which is part of a separate bill.

Finally, renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act has continued bipartisan support in Congress and the support of Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition in Burma.

There are, unfortunately, too few issues where the administration has sought to work with Congress in a bipartisan manner--mighty few, in fact--but on the issue of sanctions reauthorization, the State Department and I are in full agreement. I also know that my longstanding partner on Burma on the other side of the aisle, Senator Feinstein, shares my sentiments about reauthorizing this measure. As for Burma's democratic opposition, I spoke with Suu Kyi just a few days ago. She told me she believes the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act should be renewed.

If Burma stays on the path it seems to be on to reform, it will require significant help in reforming its economy and in developing business practices that encourage enduring foreign direct investment and corporate responsibility. A great deal of work must be done as Burma looks ahead to hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2014. For the first time in a half a century, Burma seems--seems--to be on the right path to reform, and reauthorization of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act places the United States squarely on the side of reform and of reformers.

For the reasons I have laid out, I believe a renewal of this measure is the right step to take. Burma has made great strides over the past 18 months, and Congress should recognize those strides. At the same time, Congress should not be fully satisfied with recent reforms, as much more work remains to be done.

In closing, I am introducing the renewal of the Freedom and Democracy Act, originally passed in 2003, for myself; Senator Feinstein, with whom I have worked on this over the years and referred to in my remarks; Senator John McCain, who has been very active in this area and met with Suu Kyi this past year; Senator Durbin; and Senator Collins, who had the opportunity to meet with Suu Kyi just the week before last--all of whom are active and interested in this issue.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nevada.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Rotary Club of Louisville, which is celebrating its 100th year of service to the Louisville community this year. Chartered on July 22, 1912, it has left Louisville, the State of Kentucky, and our Nation better off thanks to its efforts over the past century.

The Rotary Club of Louisville was the first Rotary Club in Kentucky and the 45th worldwide, welcoming members from 10 regional States. Today, between 450 and 490 Louisville-area residents are members of this organization.

In its early years, the Rotary Club of Louisville engaged in several local service initiatives. One of the club's first major projects was to restore the burial place of President Zachary Taylor, a Louisville native. In 1918, members established a student-loan fund for young men at Male High School and Manual High School during World War I. When radio was in its infancy, a weekly radio program was broadcast by the Louisville Rotary Club in 1922 and 1923. In the flood of 1937, members of the club assisted in cleanup and repair throughout the State.

During the World War II era, the Louisville Rotary Club expanded its outreach to the world, fundraising for the war effort and working with defense-related agencies. Many of the club's members also served in the Armed Forces. After the war, notable accomplishments included the building of George Rogers Clark Park, as well as founding the Harelip and Cleft Palate Foundation.

In 1953, the Louisville Rotary Club began its time-proven training for new members, or ``Yearlings,'' which is still used today, and the following year, the Club adopted the Rotary International Constitution. In 1987, the historically male club admitted its first female member, Patricia W. Hart, the Club's executive director. Also in 1987, members of the club donated $137,000 to the Rotary International program to eliminate polio worldwide.

The Rotary Club of Louisville has created several awards to honor its members for their contributions. In 1975, Howard Fitch was recognized as the club's first Paul Harris Fellow for his contribution to the Rotary International Foundation. Today, there are 275 Paul Harris Fellows. In 1991, the Rotarian of the Year Award was started, and in 1999, the ``Lifetime Service Award'' was established and first awarded to Henry Heuser Sr., posthumously.

In recent years, members of the Louisville Club volunteer locally by providing career guidance for high-school seniors and graduates and a mentoring program for high-school students. Along with this, members regularly work as bell-ringers for the Salvation Army. Internationally, the club works with student-exchange programs and various diverse scholarships, including the Ambassadorial Scholarship Competition, the International Scholarship Competition, and the Kentucky Rotary Youth International Exchange.

In 1996, the ``Saving Lives Worldwide Program'' was created to collect and deliver U.S. medical supplies to the world's poorest countries. During its first 8 years, this program completed 17 shipments valued at $4 million to 10 developing countries, including Nicaragua, Latvia, Nepal, Romania, Panama, Ecuador, Belize, and Ghana. Along with this, the Louisville Rotary Club has worked with clubs internationally to open six new dental clinics in Panama, Ecuador, and Nepal.

The Rotary Club of Louisville has created the Rotary Leadership Fellows Program, which identifies individuals early in their careers with the potential to become community leaders. These individuals are then invited to participate in a 3-year Rotary Leadership Development Program.

In honor of the club's centennial celebration, the Promise Scholarship program has been initiated to provide hundreds of high- school graduates with grant money to help pay for college tuition.

The past 100 years have seen the Louisville Rotary Club meet and exceed the Rotary International credo of ``Service Above Self.'' It is an honor to represent here in the U.S. Senate so many civic-minded Kentuckians of goodwill who understand the value of public service. I would ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing the Rotary Club of Louisville for its 100 years of service to the Louisville community, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and the world.

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

Mr. President, it has been a week now since the Republican leadership in the Senate and the House sent several good- faith, bipartisan proposals to the White House in an effort to resolve the student loan issue. And what has the White House done? Absolutely nothing. The President has not yet responded. One can only surmise he is delaying a solution so he can fit in a few more campaign rallies with college students while pretending someone other than himself is actually delaying action.

Today the President is taking time out of his busy fundraising schedule to hold an event at UNLV, where, once again, he will use students as props in yet another speech calling on Congress to act. What the President won't tell these students is that the House has already acted and that Republicans in both Chambers are ready to work on solutions as soon as the President can take the time. All the President has to do is to pick up his mail, choose one of the bipartisan proposals we laid out in a letter to him last week-- proposals he has already shown he supports, with pay-fors he has recommended--and then announce to the students that the problem has been solved.

Unfortunately, the President is apparently more interested in campaigning for the students at UNLV than actually working with Congress to find a solution.

Mr. President, I would suggest you open your mail. Just open your mail, and you will find a letter there from the Speaker and from the majority leader in the House and from Senator Kyl and myself laying out a way to pay for the extension of the current tax rates for student loans for another year that you yourself previously recommended. The only people dragging their feet on the issue are over at the White House itself--dragging their feet to fit in yet another college visit.

Republicans here in Congress have been crystal clear on this issue for weeks. We are ready to resolve the issue. It is time the President showed some leadership and worked with Congress to provide the certainty young people and their parents need. I encourage the President, if he really wants to do something to help students, to join us in working to find a solution. This is really pretty easy. We all agree that we ought to extend the current student loan rates for a year.

We have recommended to you, Mr. President, the way to pay for it that you have already adopted. This isn't hard.

Every day he is silent on solutions is another day closer to the rapidly approaching deadline here at the end of the month.

Tax Rate Extension

Mr. President, I stood with the Speaker of the House yesterday and his conference leadership and called for at least a 1-year extension of current tax rates to provide certainty to families and job creators around the country that their taxes will not be going up on January 1.

In the Obama economy, we are facing a looming fiscal crisis that some have called the most predictable in history. Millions are unemployed, millions more are underemployed, and the country is facing the largest tax hike in history at the end of this year.

This tax hike the President wants would hit hundreds of thousands of small businesses. To put that in perspective, this tax hike would hit job creators who employ up to 25 percent of our workforce, and we really can't allow that to happen. I think we all know we cannot allow that to happen. The economy is far too fragile right now.

Former President Bill Clinton said we are in an economic recession, and earlier this week, before the Obama campaign got to him, he was for temporarily extending current tax rates. Yesterday the Democratic Senate Budget Committee chairman came out and said he was for temporarily extending current tax rates. And I would remind everyone that it was the President himself in December of 2010 who said that you don't raise taxes in a down economy. Well, the economy is slower now than it was when he last agreed with us to extend current tax law back in December of 2010. In fact, the rate of growth in our economy is slower now than it was in December 2010 when the President agreed with us that at that point we ought to do a 2-year extension of the current tax rates. We are experiencing slower growth now than then. The same arguments apply now.

This is the time to prevent this uncertainty and the largest tax increase in American history--right in the middle of a very fragile economy. It really doesn't make any sense to do otherwise. Let's extend all the current tax relief right now--before the election. Let's show the American people we are actually listening to them. Let's send a message that in these challenging economic times, taxes won't be going up for anyone at the end of this year. And let's not stop there. Let's tackle fundamental, progrowth tax reform. This is something upon which there is bipartisan agreement. I think we all agree it has been over 25 years since we did comprehensive tax reform in this country. It is time to do that again. We all agree on that. The President thinks that and Republicans and Democrats in the Congress think that. The time to act is now. If the President is serious about turning the economy around, preventing taxes from going up at the end of the year is one bipartisan step he could take right now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, on the 68th anniversary of D- day, I am honored to recognize a distinguished group of World War II veterans from my State of Kentucky who have come to the Nation's Capital to visit the World War II Memorial on the Mall that they helped to inspire.

Thanks to the noble work of the Honor Flight Program and the leaders of the Bluegrass Chapter, including Brian Duffy, these brave patriots, along with their brothers-in-arms from the Korean war, will see the national memorials built in their honor today. Over the years, the Honor Flight Bluegrass Chapter has brought some 1,100 veterans--most from Kentucky--to Washington, DC, for this purpose. This program provides transportation, lodging, and food for the veterans. Without Honor Flight, most of these veterans would never be able to visit the Capital or see the World War II Memorial.

I have been privileged to visit with groups of Honor Flight veterans before, and I am pleased to report that I will be meeting with today's group at their memorial as well. My father served in World War II, and it is an honor to shake hands with his contemporaries, hear their stories, and thank them for their service.

America is forever indebted to the heroic members of the U.S. military who defended this great Nation and fought for freedom and against tyranny in World War II. They have truly earned the title of ``the greatest generation.''

I also thank the Honor Flight Program and Brian Duffy for their continued commitment to bring Kentucky's World War II and Korean veterans to see their memorials. Brian and the Bluegrass Chapter do what they do because they have great admiration and respect for our military veterans. I know my colleagues join me in saying that this Senate shares that admiration and respect, be it for members of ``the greatest generation'' or for the current generation of brave volunteers who have served in Afghanistan and/or Iraq or are serving today elsewhere across the world.

I wish to recognize each and every World War II and Korean war veteran from Kentucky who is visiting the memorial in our Nation's Capital today, and I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution congratulating the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on defending and advancing free market principles for the past 100 years.

For a century, the Chamber has helped business owners all across the country, from the Great Depression to the current fiscal crisis our Nation is struggling with today. The chamber and its member chambers and businesses have continued to find ways to help keep our economy growing and businesses hiring.

In 1962, marking the 50th anniversary of the founding of the chamber, President Kennedy said: ``The foundation of the Chamber in April of 1912 marked a turning point in the relations between government and business.'' This remains true to this day.

When the Chamber turned 70, President Reagan joked:

I remember the day you started. And like good wine, you

have grown better, not older.

He then quipped:

The membership of the Chamber of Commerce of the United

States is the only thing that has grown faster than the

Federal Government--thank heaven!

The free enterprise system is the backbone of the American economy, and nobody embodies it more than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So on the year marking the 100th anniversary, I, along with my colleagues, wish to extend my heartfelt thanks and appreciation for all the work they do to help businesses grow and create jobs. Through their efforts, millions of Americans have been able to pursue and achieve the American dream.

To the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, thank you for your contribution to society, and congratulations on 100 years of representing and advocating for job creators across our country.

Mr. President, I would like to continue to discuss the student loan issue this morning because the administration's approach to this problem is nothing short of surreal.

I have in my hand a letter that has been signed by the top four Republicans in Congress: Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor, minority whip Jon Kyl, and myself. It lists no fewer than four good-faith bipartisan proposals to resolve the issue, all of which are based on offsets the President has proposed himself in the past.

Let me say that again: We have recommended to the President four offsets that he, himself, has proposed in the past to achieve what we all want to achieve, which is a 1-year extension of the current student loan interest rates. We sent this letter to the President 5 days ago. Yet we have now learned that in spite of the fact they have a proposal recommending that on a bipartisan basis we accept offsets that they have previously recommended, we have now learned the Vice President will have a group of college presidents over to the White House today to ``reassert the call for Congress to stop the student loan interest rate from doubling.''

Congress has acted. We have given the administration four offsets they previously proposed. We are waiting for a response so we can solve this problem. Why doesn't the Vice President simply pick up the phone, choose one of the proposals we laid out in our letter, and then announce at the meeting the problem has been resolved? That way he will give these folks some good news to bring back to their campuses instead of just asking them to be props in this elaborate farce the White House political team cooked up on this issue. It is an elaborate farce. This can be solved very easily with offsets the administration itself has recommended.

The only people dragging their feet on this issue are over at the White House. Republicans in Congress have been crystal clear for weeks. We are ready to resolve the issue to give students the certainty they need about their loan payments. The President may find it politically useful to keep these young people off-balance, but we don't think they should have to wait another day. It is inexcusable for the President to allow this impasse to persist. That is why we bent over backward to find a solution, and it is simply disingenuous for the President to claim otherwise, which brings me to larger point.

We all realize the President is concerned about his reelection. I understand he is placing a higher priority on fundraising and trying to make Republicans look bad as he ramps up to November. I get his rationale for running a negative campaign. If I were he, I wouldn't want to brag about my record either. I get it. But I would remind him he is still the President, even though the campaign is going on, and that Americans are looking for leadership and the economic problems we face will only get worse if he avoids them for 6 more months.

So whether it is the student loan issue or the prospect of a massive tax hike at the end of the year, Republicans are ready to work with the President to provide the kind of certainty the American people need right now. But it is a two-way street. We will never solve these problems if the President continues to mislead the American people about what Republicans in Congress are willing and eager to do to help.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter I previously referred to printed in the Record.

Mr. President, hearings on the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory agenda will be held in Kentucky this week. One hearing will be held today in Frankfort and another later this week in Pikeville. Since Congress is in session this week, I will not be able to attend these important hearings in person, but I will have a representative on hand at each hearing, and I wish to express my thoughts on the matter on the Senate floor.

Similar to most of the country, Kentucky is suffering from very difficult economic times. Far too many Kentuckians are unemployed, and the prospect for future employment remains daunting. That is why it is especially irritating that this administration has blindly followed ideological policies that eliminate jobs in our communities. The people of Kentucky are amongst the hardest working people on the planet, but how can they be expected to compete if our own government is actually working against them?

Simply put, my constituents are under siege from the Obama administration's regulatory agenda, and the EPA is the worst offender-- the very worst.

Perhaps the clearest example of this administration's regulatory assault is its war on coal. Since being sworn in, President Obama's EPA has set out to circumvent the will of Congress and the American people by turning the already cumbersome mine permitting process into a backdoor means of shutting down coal mines. Mr. President, 18,000 Kentuckians work in coal mining, and nearly 200,000 more, including farmers, realtors, and transportation workers, rely on the coal industry for their jobs. Coal brings in more than $3.5 billion from out of State and pays more than $1 billion in direct wages every year. Attacking an industry so important to Kentucky will only succeed in putting people out of work, impeding future job growth, and increasing energy prices.

A former senior EPA official under the Obama administration recently summed up the regulatory philosophy of the Agency with respect to those working in the coal business by saying it wants to ``crucify'' them. Let me say that again. This was a regulator, with respect to those working in the coal business, saying it wants to ``crucify'' them. With this radical environmental anticoal agenda, it is no wonder the administration has failed to answer the call of the American people for greater domestic energy production. The real-world impact of their fantasy world energy policy is that people are losing their jobs and energy prices will rise even further.

It is high time the Obama administration stop treating the Kentucky coal industry as the problem and start recognizing that it has been and will continue to be part of the solution.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

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

Mr. President, I wish to start out this afternoon by calling attention to what appears to be a pretty serious disconnect over at the White House between the President's legislative advisers and his political team.

For weeks, President Obama has been running around ginning up college students and late-night television audiences over an impending interest rate change on college loans, pointing the finger at Republicans. But not only are Republicans supportive of solving this problem, we are the only ones who actually passed legislation to do so. House Republicans passed a bill weeks ago that would have preserved current rates, and late last week Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor, Senator Kyl, and I sent a joint letter to the President proposing multiple solutions to the problem that were thoughtfully and carefully designed to gain the President's support. In fact, the solutions were based on the President's own proposals.

Let me say that again. We sent a letter to the President advocating continuing the current rate for another year and proposed pay-fors that he himself has endorsed. So one can imagine how surprised we were to see one of the President's political advisers say on one of the Sunday shows yesterday that Republicans in Congress are sitting on our hands and an op-ed this morning by the Education Secretary saying that Congress isn't lifting a finger to resolve the problem.

So let's be very clear about all of this. Republicans in Congress are the only ones actually working to solve the student loan issue. Unless the President isn't having his mail forwarded to him on the campaign trail, he knows it as well as I do.

I couldn't help but notice that the President is on a fundraising blitz in Manhattan today. No doubt it is easier to walk into these events when one has a good piece of fiction to sell about Republican obstructionism. But the President's campaign rhetoric is increasingly at odds with reality. On the student loan issue, at least, it is Republicans who have been working on a solution and the President who has been totally AWOL. All he has to do is pick up the phone and tell us which one of his own proposals he will accept. It is that easy. But the truth is that the President doesn't really want to solve this problem. He seems to prefer the talking point, as disingenuous as it is.

Speaking of talking points, it has been suggested by some on the President's political team that Republicans are rooting for economic failure. That is absolutely preposterous. If Republicans wanted failure, we would support this President's misguided policies.

But the larger point is this: We will never solve any of these problems we face while the President continues to put his need for campaign rhetoric ahead of finding bipartisan solutions. And whether it is pretending that small-ball, Post-it note-quality proposals would have a major impact on the economy or pretending that Republicans, who are the only ones actually working on bipartisan solutions, are somehow sitting on our hands, he is doing a major disservice to the American people.

For the good of the country, it is time for the President to take yes for an answer. It is long past time for the President to lead.

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

Madam President, Kentucky received quite an honor recently when the Carol Martin Gatton Academy of Mathematics and Science in Kentucky, an elite public high school that draws students from all over the Commonwealth, was named the No. 1 public high school in the United States by Newsweek Magazine. Think about that, Madam President--out of more than 20,000 public high schools in the Nation, the top-ranked one is in Kentucky.

The Gatton Academy is in Bowling Green, KY, specifically, and it is a special place. First opened in 2007 and funded by the Kentucky General Assembly, the Gatton Academy is the Commonwealth's only State-supported residential high school with an emphasis on math and science. Bright, highly motivated students come from across the State and stay on campus, taking college-level courses at Western Kentucky University.

Dr. Julia Roberts, a good friend of mine and the executive director of the academy, worked hard for many years to see the school become a reality. How wonderful for her that her vision has been realized. This honor is a recognition that she truly deserves for her steadfast commitment to help Kentucky's finest students blossom and reach their full potential.

Here is a quote from Dr. Roberts that summarizes the school's mission:

The United States has emphasized proficiency or grade-level

learning to the exclusion of nurturing the talents of

advanced learners. A promising future for our country is

closely tied to the development of talent in science,

mathematics, languages arts, the social sciences, and the

arts. The purpose of the Gatton Academy is to extend learning

opportunities for gifted students who live in all parts of

Kentucky.

I also must recognize Dr. Tim Gott, director of the Gatton Academy, without whose hard work the school surely would not have been able to rise to the top. In fact, the Gatton Academy tops Newsweek's list of public high schools this year after ranking fifth in 2011. That is quite a jump up in 1 year, thanks in part no doubt to the indefatigable work of Dr. Gott.

``It's just wonderful to be able to celebrate Kentucky students,'' Dr. Gott says. He also adds, ``This recognition would not have been possible without the full partnership we have with Western Kentucky University.''

The Newsweek rankings that put Gatton Academy on top were based on measurements such as graduation rates, college enrollment, average ACT and SAT scores, and advanced placement tests per student, as well as scores. This year, the school's average ACT score was 31.2 out of a possible 36, and its average SAT score was 2,010 out of a possible 2,400. In addition, over half of the school's students studied abroad last year, and 91 percent of recent graduates participated in a research project sponsored by a university mentor.

Mr. President, I would like to ask at this time that my colleagues in the Senate join me in recognizing the Carol Martin Gatton Academy of Mathematics and Science in Kentucky and its great contribution to the success of Kentucky and the Nation. The students at Gatton are the future leaders and success stories of America.

I ask unanimous consent that the Newsweek article naming the Carol Martin Gatton Academy of Mathematics and Science in Kentucky as the top-ranked public school in the Nation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I think we are under a time agreement on the bill; is that correct?

I wish to proceed under my leader time.

Mr. President, today we will once again attempt to prevent student loan interest rates from going up. This problem could have been solved literally weeks ago, but our friends on the other side were not interested in solving the problem; they wanted a scapegoat more than a solution.

So this afternoon we will vote on two different ways of addressing the issue. The Democratic plan is designed to fail. In order to cover the cost of a temporary rate freeze that both parties actually want, they propose to divert $6 billion from Medicare and to raise taxes on small businesses, hurting the very companies we are counting on to hire today's college graduates. They have known for months that we would not support this tax hike and that it couldn't pass this Chamber or the House of Representatives. It has already failed, but they are proposing it anyway, for a second time.

If our Democratic friends would allow it, the chairman and ranking

member could write a bill that could actually pass. But since passage isn't their goal, our friends on the other side huddled behind closed doors, out of sight of the public and the press, and produced the tax hike instead of letting the committee actually do its work.

We already know how this story is going to end. We know exactly, already, how the story will end. So why are the Democrats forcing us to vote on their failed proposal yet again? Because, as I have said, they are more interested in drawing our opposition--of trying to create a bad guy--than in actually solving the problem.

When it comes to college graduates today, the bigger issue is the President's economic agenda which has created an environment in which most of them can't find a decent job. So I can understand why our Democratic friends want to change the subject, but if we are actually going to do something to solve the problem, we are going to need to get past the political theatrics.

If Senate Democrats reject the bipartisan fix the House already passed--one that doesn't raise taxes or divert a single dollar away from Medicare and is an offset they have used themselves before--then I hope they will turn around and work with us on a bipartisan fix that doesn't tax small businesses--a proposal that is actually designed to pass and become law.

But let's be clear about something. The real issue isn't the fact that certain students are going to see an interest rate hike because we will address that concern; it is that so many young people today can't find a job that will enable them to pay off their loans in the first place. That is the much larger problem. The solution is a progrowth agenda that would make it easier for U.S. businesses to hire, not a tax hike that will actually make it harder for them to hire.

In the short term, Republicans are ready to work to offer this temporary relief, but we are still waiting on the Democratic leadership to propose a solution of their own that can actually pass either one or two Chambers of Congress.

I would, once again, urge the President to get involved. If the President has time to run around to late-night comedy shows and college campuses talking about this issue, then he can pick up the phone and work out a solution with Democrats in the Senate.

Last week at the White House, I pressed the President to get involved in order to prevent the student interest rates from going up--a goal we all share. Think about it. If the President wants to pass this bill so badly, then why on Earth hasn't he picked up the phone and called the chairman or ranking Republican of the relevant committee? As with so many pressing issues, the President has not led on this issue. He has campaigned on it, but he has not worked to actually fix it.

The American people are tired of the posturing and the games. It is time for the President to lead. It is time for Senate Democrats to stop the political theater and to find a real solution.

Thanking Senator Enzi

Mr. President, on another matter, I wish to take a moment to thank my good friend, the senior Senator from Wyoming, Mike Enzi, for the work he has done shepherding the FDA bill through the markup and across the Senate floor. This is an incredibly complex piece of legislation that strikes a difficult balance of protecting consumers while avoiding the stifling regulation that slows the process of bringing lifesaving drugs and devices to market.

Throughout a lengthy process, Mike has shown the command of complex topics, steady leadership, and interest in his colleagues' priorities that have characterized his tenure at the HELP Committee. For that, those of us on this side of the aisle would like to thank him very much.

Honoring Our Armed Forces

Specialist David W. Taylor

Mr. President, I wish to address one other matter. I have a sad task today of informing my colleagues that a valued and honorable Kentuckian who enlisted in the U.S. Army has fallen in the performance of his duty. On March 29, 2012, SPC David W. Taylor of Dixon, KY, died from injuries sustained in an accident at an ammunitions supply point in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan. He was 20 years old.

For his service in uniform, Specialist Taylor received several awards, medals, and decorations, including the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, the Parachutist Badge, and the Overseas Service Bar.

After his tragic death at entirely too young an age, one of Specialist Taylor's commanders, Sergeant Addington, delivered a tribute to his fallen brother in arms. This is what he said:

When his country called for young lives to offer themselves

up for the preservation of freedom, young David Taylor

answered the call and said, ``Here am I, take me.''

Specialist Taylor was my soldier, my battle buddy, and my

friend. He was a fast learner and my greatest student. He

sacrificed himself so we might be free.

Before he was a soldier, his mother Sarah Taylor recalled that David was a compassionate, dedicated young man. From a young age, he was always looking for ways to help others. Sarah says of her son: ``One Christmas he had received a large amount of gifts.''

David asked his parents ``if he could give some of his gifts to a classmate of his who he knew would not receive many items.''

David was a great athlete who played football and soccer and ran track. He loved to hunt and hunted turkey and deer, but his real passion was for duck hunting. He had many friends, was the life of the party, and he was popular with the girls. David ``would change outfits multiple times before going to school, as his hair and clothes had to be perfect,'' Sarah says.

David was also very dedicated to physical fitness. He worked out multiple times a week to stay in shape. Perhaps that is because young David knew his body was his instrument, and he had made up his mind to join the military by age 14.

David's high school did not have an ROTC program, so David worked hard to graduate 6 months early and eagerly enlisted. He skipped both the prom and graduation to take up his more important pursuit, enlisting in January 2010. He even waived his signing bonus saying, ``It is every young man's duty to serve.''

David planned to make the military his career and hoped to go into the medical field. He dedicated himself to the military handbook and doing everything ``by the book.'' He went on to serve as a paratrooper in a parachute infantry regiment, one of the most demanding specialties in the Army.

LT Eric Fitzgerald was Specialist Taylor's platoon leader. He says:

David was one of the most outstanding paratroopers in the

whole platoon, just striving to be the best. When you wanted

something done, when you wanted it done right, you went to

Taylor for it.

CPT Brian Bifulco, David's company commander, concurs:

It was evident since the day I met him that David had all

the qualities desirable in a paratrooper: Smart, aggressive,

committed, and reliable. He displayed them readily in

everything he did.

David maintained his rigorous workout schedule in the Army by following the Crossfit physical fitness programs 5 to 6 days a week so he could excel at the Army's physical fitness test. He could run his 2- mile fitness test in a full minute faster than anyone else in his platoon. Specialist Taylor was assigned to D Company, 2nd Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, based out of Fort Bragg, NC. He deployed to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom in February of this year for what would be his first and only deployment.

David's fellow soldiers from his platoon named the small gym in their Afghanistan outpost in his honor as a remembrance of David's commitment to excellence. Nearly every soldier in the platoon wears a metal bracelet honoring Specialist Taylor. SFC Russ Kelley had this to say:

For many of the guys, this is the first friend they've ever

lost to combat. They wear the bracelets to remember.

At this time we are thinking of SPC David W. Taylor's family and his friends as I recount his story for the Senate, including his mother Sarah Taylor, his grandmother Laura Klutey,

and many other beloved family members and friends. David was preceded in death by his father Kevin Taylor.

David's mother Sarah says David loved the Army and was excited to be in Afghanistan.

Sergeant Addington remembers:

David seemed to live for the job, and while others would

whine and complain in the field, David would just sling up

his hammock and settle in. He was at home in the woods, a

natural outdoorsman.

David, who grew up in the woods, fit in perfectly. He

seemed born to do this job, and I felt sorry for any Taliban

that he was bound to run into in Afghanistan. The Taliban got

lucky this time.

Even if that is the case, the tragedy of Specialist Taylor's death is certainly not lucky for anyone else, most of all not for the family he has left behind or his friends and fellow soldiers.

I know it is small solace in place of what they have lost, but I want them to know this Senate holds SPC David W. Taylor in the highest regard for his service on behalf of our country. We are honored, just a few days before Memorial Day, to recognize his enormous sacrifice on behalf of this Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we are in a rather ridiculous staring contest, waiting for our Democratic friends to offer a proposal that can actually pass when we already have one right in front of us. We have wasted actually 2 weeks on this student loan issue for no good reason. Neither I nor the ranking member has heard a word from the Democrats on how they propose to resolve the issue and actually prevent the interest rate from rising.

As we learned earlier this week, the President doesn't seem to even talk to his committee chairmen anymore. All of this suggests that the White House doesn't want to solve the problem; that it would rather allow these rates to double in a few weeks so he can run around all summer pointing the finger at those Republicans in the Senate.

I would still like to believe that is not the case. We had a chance to talk to the President about this and other issues last week down at the White House. I am convinced he would like to get a solution. Yet the fact is, all he would have to do is simply pick up the phone and tell the Democratic leadership that we would like to get this done, and I am pretty confident we could work it out. Unfortunately, we cannot just wait around hoping the President is going to pick up the phone. College students cannot wait either. They want us to resolve the issue now, and I know we can.

To move the ball forward, I would say to my colleague, the majority leader, if he agrees with me--Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi just did a good job with coming up with a bipartisan solution to the FDA bill. I am confident they could do the same thing on the student loan issue. They are the chairman and the ranking member of the committee that oversees student loan legislation. I have a lot of confidence in their ability to do it.

I am going to proffer a consent agreement that I think would allow us to go forward. My colleague from Tennessee will take the balance of our time after I have concluded.

I ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion of the two scheduled votes on the student loan bill, which we are about to have, the next order of business be a Harkin-Enzi bill dealing with the issue of the current student loan rate; provided further that no motion to proceed to other items be in order unless agreed to by both leaders.

The purpose of this consent agreement I have just proffered is to allow Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi to negotiate on this important issue, the increase in the student loan rates, and to keep the Senate focused on how to resolve this issue in a timely way before the rate goes up. The bill they would negotiate would be the next order of business, but it would also provide that both leaders could agree to allow the Senate to work on other measures if necessary as those student loan discussions continue.

On behalf of Senator Alexander I call up amendment No. 2153.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, let me make a few observations and then I intend to offer a consent request myself.

This is a problem that has been created by the majority, and I am sorry they will not accept our offer to fix their problem so we can move forward on this legislation. We have all known for literally years when the Violence Against Women Act was going to expire. We have known that for years. During this time, Democrats controlled the Senate. Yet our friends on the other side waited until February of this year-- nearly 6 months after the current authorization expired--before they even reported a bill out of committee, and they chose to wait almost 3 months more to bring a bill to the floor.

I don't know why that decision was made. Press reports indicate that members of the Democratic leadership thought they could use VAWA as a campaign issue. When they finally chose to bring this bill to the Senate floor, Republicans consented to going to the bill, Republicans consented to bringing the debate to a close, and Republicans consented to limiting ourselves to just two amendments--just two. Our Democratic colleagues also added an amendment. It was a complete substitute. They offered it at the last minute.

This substitute was a couple hundred pages long and it added new sections to the bill. One of those sections would generate revenue by assessing new fees on immigration visas. I gather our Democratic colleagues did this because their bill, unlike the Hutchison-Grassley bill, would add over $100 million to the debt.

Including this provision is obviously a problem, in that adding a revenue provision in a Senate bill violates the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution. If we sent the Senate bill to the House in its current form, it would trigger a blue slip point of order, as it always does.

It is not our fault Senate Democrats waited until well after VAWA expired to start moving a bill. It is not our fault their bill would add to the debt. It is not our fault our friends waited until the last minute to try to fix the problem, and, in the course of doing so, they created yet another problem. We have offered to help them fix their problem. They do not have to accept our help, but they should stop demagoguing the issue and blaming others.

Therefore, I would offer another consent: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 406, H.R. 4970, the House-passed Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; provided further that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of the Senate-passed Violence Against Women bill, S. 1925, with a modification that strikes sections 805 and 810 related to the immigration provisions; that the bill be read three times and passed, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with a ratio agreed to by both leaders.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great educator who has impacted the lives of thousands of Kentuckians over the course of his career. My good friend, Dr. Larry D. Shinn, will retire in a little more than a month's time after serving 18 years as president of Berea College in Berea, KY, and I know I speak for many when I say I am very sorry to see him go.

Dr. Shinn has served as president since 1994 and is the eighth president of Berea College, a proud liberal-arts college which is dedicated to serving students of great promise and limited economic means. Its primary focus is on serving students from the Appalachian region. Berea College generously offers a full-tuition scholarship to each of its 1,500 students and requires all of them to work in positions on campus. Berea College is proud of its heritage as the first interracial and coeducational college in the South and proud of its focus on a Christian ethic of service and its historic mission to promote the cause of Christ.

Dr. Shinn is a magna cum laude graduate of Baldwin-Wallace College and a summa cum laude graduate of Drew University Theological School. He received his Ph.D. in history of religions from Princeton University. Before coming aboard as Berea's president, he taught at Oberlin College for 14 years and served as dean and vice president at Bucknell University for 10 years. He has authored several books and numerous articles and book reviews.

Then there is the remarkable progress Berea College has made under Dr. Shinn's leadership. During his presidency, Dr. Shinn has led the school's strategic-planning process and the creation of its strategic plan for Berea College to thrive in the 21st century. He has instituted a decisionmaking process that has enhanced virtually every area of academic life, from student retention and graduation rates to residential life, academic planning, development, and facilities renovation. He has led Berea's sustainability initiative, which is responsible for the creation of the Sustainability and Environmental Studies Program; the ecological renovations of several campus buildings, including the first LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, building in Kentucky; and the establishment of a residential ``eco-village'' for student families.

Dr. Shinn also led the ``Extending Berea's Legacy'' campaign that raised $162 million for endowments to fund student scholarships, undergraduate research, a new technology program for students, a study abroad program, an entrepreneurship program, and other key initiatives.

I know that Larry and his wife Nancy are looking forward to having a little more time to themselves and to spend with their family, but their gain will certainly be Berea College's and Kentucky's loss. In his 18 years at the helm, Dr. Shinn has proven himself to be one of the finest college presidents in Kentucky and the Nation. I salute him for his incredible legacy of service towards improving the lives of the thousands of Kentuckians and other students who have passed through Berea College's doors. He is a great Kentuckian whom I have been honored to represent and to work with over his nearly two decades as Berea College's president. He will be missed.

Mr. President, the Berea Spotlight, a publication of Berea College, published an article highlighting the many accomplishments of Dr. Larry Shinn around the time he announced his retirement. I ask unanimous consent that said article be printed in the Record.