Floor Statements

Mr. President, I think most of the items the majority leader mentioned we should be able to move to completion on. There remains a good deal of concern on this side about the way in which procedurally we are going to go forward on supplemental appropriations. But having said that, it certainly is an important piece of legislation. I am sure we will get to the end of the process at some point next week.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the undaunted courage and fighting spirit of one soldier from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. CPL Joseph H. Cantrell IV was lost on April 4, 2007, in Taji, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations. The Westwood, KY, native was 23 years old.

For his valor in uniform, Corporal Cantrell received several awards, medals and decorations, including the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Purple Heart.

After Corporal Cantrell was gone, his mother, Sondra Adkins, met a woman at a hospital who said that her nephew was also a soldier. He had been wounded and then saved by an Army medic, and now was going to name his son after the medic who had treated him. That medic's name was Joey.

``My son saved her nephew's life,'' Sondra reveals.

Those who knew Joey growing up in Boyd County, in northeastern Kentucky, were not surprised at the impact the young man could have on others. Sondra remembers when an excited Joey called her to say ``there is nothing more beautiful than bringing a baby into the world.''

``By chance, he got to deliver a baby during his Army training,'' Sondra says. ``He was high on life that day. That wasn't a planned event. He called and said, `You're not going to believe this . . . I got to deliver a baby.' ''

Joey was an Army medic who saved lives in Iraq. He brought the same enthusiasm to his job that he once had as a child who would dress up in camouflage and green paint on Halloween and go out as ``G.I. Joey.''

At Westwood's Fairview High School, Joey was a member of Who's Who and the National Honors Society, and played football and ran track.

``I didn't want him to run track because he was so short,'' Sondra recalls. ``The hurdles came up to his hipbone. But he could clear those hurdles and come out . . . as the best hurdle jumper. . . . Track was his calling. He could flat-out fly.''

Joey's dad, Joe Cantrell, remembers eating lunch with his son just before a big hurdle race. ``We went to eat and Joey told me, `Dad, I'm going to win this because they don't think I can,' '' Joe says. ``When the gun went off, all they saw was his back end. When he'd get his confidence built up, he was fun to watch in sports.''

``Joey had the perfect life in high school,'' Sondra adds. ``Dating the head cheerleader, excelling on the football team. He was very outgoing.''

Joey graduated from Fairview in 2002, and attended Ashland Community College. One day he came to his mother and said, ``Mom, I have something to prove.''

``I said, `You don't have anything to prove to anybody,' '' Sondra says. ``He replied, `You're right. I have to prove this to myself.' I was prepared for my son to move out, but I wasn't prepared for my son to live halfway around the world.''

Joey enlisted in the U.S. Army on March 31, 2005. ``He joined the Army to see how high he could fly without someone to catch him,'' his father, Joe, says. ``There was no quit in him.''

Joey was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, based out of Fort Hood, TX, and in October 2006, he was deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

One day he called his mom from Iraq after saving a fellow soldier's life. ``Mama, the only thing the soldier was worried about was if he would be able to walk again and continue serving his country,'' he told her.

``He loved his job,'' Sondra adds. ``They're out there to do a job just like all of us--but theirs is the most dangerous of all.''

Joe says that Joey eventually wanted to study sports medicine. Sondra recalls Joey wanting to be a doctor, perhaps an obstetrician.

On the day of Joey's funeral, students from the local schools lined up alongside the road holding flags to watch the procession drive by. ``I couldn't believe the turnout from the community,'' Sondra says. The city of Westwood dedicated Main Street in Joey's memory.

Mr. President, our prayers are with the Cantrell family after their tragic loss. We are thinking of Joey's mother, Sondra Adkins; his father, Joe Cantrell; his brother, Chase Adkins; his stepfather, Bryan Adkins; his grandmother, Pehylien Mullins; his aunts Anita Hollo, Jeannie Mullins, Elisa Lambert, and Janie Hill; and other beloved family members and friends. Joey was predeceased by his grandfather, Claude Mullins.

At Boyd County High School in Ashland, a teacher named Mary Beth Leadingham Patton started ``Project Joey.'' Mary Beth is an old friend of Joey's mother, Sondra.

``She was one of the first visitors to come to my house to see my Joey when he was born,'' Sondra recalls.

Project Joey is simple: When Mary Beth's kids pass someone in uniform, they stop and say thank you.

``Those young men and those young women--we truly do not know what they've had to see in their lives,'' Sondra says. ``We should always be thankful that we have someone who's gone that extra mile for all of us.''

Sondra, of course, does know some of what our men and women in uniform have seen, as she watched her little Joey grow into a man, a patriot and a dedicated soldier.

And although he is gone, it is not too late to thank CPL Joseph H. Cantrell IV. This United States Senate is honored to pay tribute to his life of service, and we pause with reverence for the sacrifice he made on his Nation's behalf.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as this Senate takes up the farm bill conference report, I want to share with my colleagues several important ways that this bill will benefit the farmers and the people of Kentucky.

Agriculture generates $4 billion in cash receipts in Kentucky every year. We rank fourth in the Nation in the number of farms per State, and 54 percent of Kentucky's acreage is farmland. We are the largest beef-cattle producing State east of the Mississippi, and we produce a diverse array of crops. So the contents of this report are very important to Kentucky.

I received a letter this week from the Kentucky Farm Bureau reiterating this bill's importance to Kentucky and America. They wrote, ``While the bill is not perfect, it is a carefully crafted bill . . . that continues to provide a solid foundation for American agriculture to continue production of food and fiber not only for Americans, but the world.''

Because agricultural production varies greatly across my State, Kentucky benefits from a wide array of conservation efforts, including the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, and others.

As a supporter of conservation efforts with a long record of working to protect Kentucky's natural resources, it is important to me that this conference report continues to support these initiatives.

Approximately 50 percent of Kentucky's land is forested, so it was important that this legislation open many USDA conservation programs to forest landowners. That will yield improved air quality, cleaner drinking water, and less soil erosion, among other environmental benefits to our State.

Kentucky also has an interest in the production of renewable fuels; this conference report includes important incentives to spur the growth of this industry as well.

On another note, I am glad the conference committee has seen fit to include my provision addressing the need for better nutrition for our schoolchildren. I cast the deciding vote to save the School Lunch Program in 1995, and educating our kids about the food they eat remains a priority.

This provision calls on USDA to survey what schools are serving to our children. This information will help USDA provide guidance to schools to serve healthier meals and it is sorely needed, as USDA's most recent data on this question is over a decade old.

In the last 30 years, the childhood obesity rate has more than tripled. Today, over 4.5 million American children are facing a lifetime of all the increased health risks that obesity causes. This nutrition provision can be the first step towards reversing that unfortunate trend.

Let me also note that this conference report retains a number of provisions I authored to support Kentucky's largest agricultural product, the horse industry. While the world's eyes focus on Kentucky one day each year for the running of the Kentucky Derby, I point out to my colleagues that the horse industry employs 50,000 Kentuckians and contributes $3.5 billion to our economy year-round. I want to ensure this important part of our farm economy is treated fairly.

On one final topic, I would be remiss if I didn't mention my disappointment that this bill will unfairly punish Kentucky's small farmers by making all farmers with less than 10 base acres ineligible for farm payments. That disproportionately hurts Kentucky because we have such a high proportion

of small farms. I am concerned this punitive portion of the bill will have broader consequences than the authors realize and will punish some of those farmers who might be most in need of assistance.

However, the good appears to outweigh the troubling aspects of this conference report, and a lot of Kentuckians will benefit from the many important programs that are promoted and preserved in this bill. I will support it and by doing so, support the hard-working farmers in Kentucky who are feeding our Nation and the world while providing a living for so many citizens in America.

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

Madam President, 2 years ago, Democrats campaigned on tax relief for middle-class families. They called for fiscal restraint and lowering the national debt. But as we have seen over the last year, our good friends are more concerned with increasing taxation, increasing regulation, and increasing litigation. The budget they unveiled this year is the latest example.

If we were to follow this budget, it would go a long way toward turning us into a country like France, at a time when even the French, as we all know,

are trying to pull back and trying to get out of the ditch into which they have put themselves.

This budget lifts the curtain on what they have in store for America's already overburdened taxpayers. Instead of lowering taxes on America's working families and small businesses, this budget contains the largest tax hike in U.S. history.

It is not just the rich who would see their tax bills increase by an average of $2,300 a year; it is taxpayers making as little as $31,850, and couples earning $63,700. These are families the Democrats are calling rich and on whom they want to raise taxes.

Under this budget, every American would see his or her share of the national debt rise by $6,440 as a result of dramatically higher spending requests.

At a time when American families are tightening their belts and checking their own spending habits, Washington should be doing the same. Yet they are proposing the opposite. At a time of serious economic concern, they want to grow the Federal budget to over $1 trillion in nonemergency spending.

We have heard a lot of talk over the last few months from the other side about how middle-class families are struggling to make ends meet. We even worked together to pass a stimulus package that puts money back in the wallets of middle-class families. But now our good friends on the other side want to take that money back--and then some--to fund their irresponsible spending hikes.

Let's be clear about what this budget is: It is the Democrats' way of saying yes to the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past. American families cannot afford this budget, American job creators cannot afford this budget, and neither can our economy.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I may add, I think the majority leader has made a wise decision, after consultation with both sides. Cloture would not have been invoked tomorrow. Senators Kennedy and Enzi can work out an orderly process. I think it is an approach that I applaud and recommend.

Mr. President, more than a hundred years ago, the Hungarian journalist Theodore Herzl set into motion a political movement that would change the world.

Herzl's vision for a Jewish homeland would not be realized in his own lifetime, but the nation that would become the modern State of Israel would have exceeded even his dreams of a prosperous home for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In the nearly 2,000 years that had passed since the exile, the Jewish people had remained faithful to their traditions, praying and hoping for their eventual return. That right was acknowledged in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and reaffirmed by the mandate of the League of Nations in 1922. The horrors of the Nazi Holocaust made Israel's establishment all the more urgent, and had created among the American people a deep sympathy for the aspirations of the Jewish people. At the stroke of midnight, on this day in 1948, the modern State of Israel was born, and just eleven minutes later, here in the U.S., President Truman recognized the new state, solidifying for all time the bond between our two countries.

A deep friendship between America and Israel is natural, given the many political and moral values we share. But our strong diplomatic ties were far from inevitable. Historians tell us that recognition was strenuously opposed by Secretary of State George Marshall, a foreign policy realist who valued strategic interests over humanitarian concerns. In this case, Marshall was overridden by his Commander in Chief, who, following the Holocaust, saw the moral and humanitarian imperative of the Jewish people having their own state. Despite President Truman's deep respect for Marshall, it was a decision that Truman would never regret.

The U.S. Congress, it should be noted, had spoken out on the issue long before recognition was sought. As far back as 1922, Congress expressed its sympathy for a sovereign homeland for the Jewish people. It would take two more decades for that state to come about, but when it did Congress and the American people were ready once again to express overwhelming support.

In the decades since the birth of the modern State of Israel, much has changed. This desert land has in many ways become ``a land that floweth with milk and honey.'' In this, it reflects the ingenuity and the resourcefulness of the Israeli people.

Over time, the U.S.-Israeli relationship has only grown stronger. A bond that was originally based largely on moral grounds and shared values has been fortified by shared strategic interests.

While some Arab states recognize Israel, most do not. And Israel faces numerous threats, including an existential threat from Iran.

Yet on this day of celebration, it is my fervent hope that Israel will soon celebrate its birth as a state that is recognized by all its Arab neighbors, safe from the threat of terror. Until then, I know my colleagues and I will do everything in our power to ensure that the U.S.-Israeli relationship is robust, and that the Jewish state has all it needs to defend itself.

On this anniversary, we send our best wishes and every expression of heartfelt goodwill and congratulations to the Jewish people.

I yield the floor.

I send a cloture motion to the desk on a first-degree amendment and ask unanimous consent that reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I am not going to, but I wish to explain that Members on this side of the aisle are prepared to go forward with the amendments Senator Enzi has been suggesting we vote on. We are having some difficulty achieving that, but we would like to have some more votes on the underlying bill today.

Having said that, I do not object.

Mr. President, later this morning we will vote on an amendment to increase production of American energy, which will help lower prices at the pump and create more American jobs. Last year, this Congress acted in a bipartisan way to reduce our demand for oil by increasing fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and by increasing our use of renewable fuels. But no matter how hard we might try, we cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. We know we also need to increase supply in order to lower gas prices, and that is what our amendment does.

In the short term, it places a 6-month moratorium on deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which will immediately have an impact on domestic supply. It also increases production of American energy right here at home by opening a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for production and allowing coastal States to decide if they want to allow increased production on the Outer Continental Shelf. It repeals the moratorium on oil shale development that was included in last year's Omnibus appropriations bill, and it would encourage the development of coal to liquid, a very promising substitute for petroleum products that we can produce right here in America and specifically in Kentucky, my home State, with American workers. Our amendment would provide grants and loans to accelerate the development of advanced batteries that can be used to power the next generation of plug-in hybrid vehicles here in America. These measures, coupled with the conservation and biofuels measure we supported last year, will increase our energy independence and help to bring down gas prices in the long term.

Some say opening new areas for production won't do anything in the short term. But remember, if President Clinton had not vetoed legislation to open ANWR 13 years ago, more than a million barrels of oil would be flowing to American consumers every single day. I believe it makes more sense for us to produce these additional barrels here at home with American jobs rather than begging OPEC to produce more, as some on the other side have advocated.

I urge my colleagues to consider our long-term energy goals and our need for increased energy independence and vote in favor of this amendment.

We can't continue to ignore the No. 1 issue facing American families, and further delay is not an option that Americans can afford. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle believe we need to ask OPEC to supply more oil, that we ought to be sending even more money and jobs to the nations of OPEC. But we take a different approach. Our amendment would increase the production right here at home in America. While some want to increase OPEC's control over oil supply by refusing an increase in American supply, our amendment increases American control through American energy and American jobs right here in the United States.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like to address the heartbreaking humanitarian crisis in Burma and the actions of the military junta there which have shocked our consciences over these last days.

A govrnment that was swift to mobilize last year against a peaceful protest by unarmed monks has astonished us with its sluggish response to the devastating May 3 storm.

With thousands dead and perhaps 2 million now at risk of further suffering, the military junta has treated the cyclone as more of a political inconvenience than a national tragedy, focusing on a sham constitutional referendum instead of relief efforts. And

the consequences of this callous response are tragic. As precious time was wasted, what was already a terrible natural disaster became a manmade disaster of spreading hunger and disease. We have heard reports of aid workers being turned away and of visas for aid workers being refused on the grounds that consulates were closed for the weekend.

Today, finally, an American C-130 was permitted into Burma carrying desperately needed supplies. Two more flights are expected tomorrow. This is a positive development, but it is also an extremely modest concession.

It is my hope that these halting steps by the regime in the last day or so augur a greater openness to humanitarian assistance.

The people of Burma should know that, if permitted, America stands ready to help.

Mr. President, all across the country this week, Americans will honor the law enforcement officers who keep our Nation safe and paying solemn tribute to those who have lost their lives in the line of duty. Peace Officers' Memorial Day and Police Week is a time to thank all those who keep us safe, and a time to be grateful for all who have served.

As the Jefferson County Judge Executive in Louisville, KY, I had a strong relationship with the local police force. I was always proud of the department and its leadership and the rank and file officers who worked hard to protect and defend Louisville. I remember the pride we felt when we brought county and city police together to create the Crimes Against Children Unit, and the pride the officers felt when they made it a model for the rest of the country.

Louisville has changed a lot since then, and so has America. On September 11 we awoke to an enemy that has no regard for human life and that has repeatedly expressed its intent to destroy our Nation. We have seen the horror these people can inflict on our cities. And we take them at their word when they say that they plan to do it again. It is because of this threat that today we have an even deeper appreciation for the men and women who enforce our laws, not just as first responders to crime, but as a first line of defense against potential terrorist attacks.

During this Peace Officers' Memorial Day and Police Week, we honor the contributions of our police officers and other keepers of the peace. We remember the sacrifice of those who have fallen in the line of duty, including Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson, who gave their lives right here in the Capitol ten years ago. It was July 24, 1998) when they, as it now says on the plaque commemorating their heroism, ``bravely gave their lives defending the United States Capitol.''

We express our gratitude to the families of America's peace officers and police, who make sacrifices large and small so their loved ones can keep the rest of us safe.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize a very special individual from my home State of Kentucky, Mr. Robley Rex. Earlier this month, Mr. Rex celebrated his 107th birthday. To live 107 years in and of itself is an achievement by anyone's standard. In the case of Robley Rex, those 107 years have been especially full of accomplishment and patriotic service. He has filled his lifetime with loyal service to our Nation's Armed Forces, to the U.S. Postal Department, to local businesses, to the Methodist ministries and, perhaps most importantly, to his family and his fellow veterans.

Robley Rex was born in Hopkinsville, KY 1901. Upon turning 18, be enlisted in the U.S. Army and proudly served our Nation. He returned to Kentucky after serving with 5th Infantry in Germany in 1922. Mr. Rex then joined the Veterans of Foreign Wars, VFW, and married Ms. Grace Bivens. He held jobs with local Kentucky businesses before beginning his career as a U.S. Postal Department railroad mail clerk. At the spry, young age of 86, Robley Rex began volunteering through the VFW and was honored by the group for having performed more than 13,600 hours of service over a 20-year period. He also volunteered his time at the VA Medical Center in Louisville, KY, helping the hospital staff and inspiring the patients and their families. He also found time to become an expert in proper flag etiquette. Mr. President, I don't know I anyone who knows more about how to properly care for an American flag than Mr. Rex.

I am proud to represent such a remarkable model of honor and duty and I am pleased to have the opportunity to recognize Robley Rex in front of this distinguished body. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking him for his continued service to our Nation and to Kentucky, and to wish him all the best on his 107th birthday and in the future.

Mr. President, reading the morning papers, we learned a couple of key points about the energy proposal introduced yesterday by our

friends on the other side. The most important point is that two central provisions of the bill are opposed by two of their own chairmen. In this morning's Albuquerque Journal, we learned that the Democratic chairman of the Senate Energy Committee does not like the so-called windfall profit tax. He called it ``arbitrary.''

Now, we know this is a bad idea that does not work. The last time a windfall profits tax was tried in the 1980s, it reduced domestic production and actually increased our reliance on foreign oil, just the opposite of a rational policy to reduce gas prices to make America more energy independent.

In the Wall Street Journal, we learned that the senior Senator from New York, the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, is raising the alarm about another central tenet of the Democratic energy proposal, the energy futures trading provision. The Journal reports the chairman is saying the energy futures trading provisions, as written, would send the bulk of the trading that is now done in America, and thus American jobs, to markets overseas.

I agree with both of these chairmen. Two years have passed since Congressional Democrats said they had a ``commonsense plan'' to address high gas prices. This week Senate Democrats finally unveiled that plan, and their own chairmen do not seem to like parts of it. It is predictably high on taxes, more bureaucracy, and continued dependence on OPEC.

Their proposal would do nothing to lower the price of gas. It will only serve to further reduce domestic supplies and increase our dependency on foreign oil at a time when we are trying to make America more, not less, energy independent.

Republicans believe we should increase our supply of American energy to bring gas prices down and to create American jobs. Apparently our friends across the aisle believe we should continue to ask OPEC to increase its supply, while opposing additional production of American energy.

We will have an opportunity to vote on Monday on the proposal that the majority of Members on my side think would make an actual difference in the coming years. It is a fundamental difference of opinion. We can either proactively increase our domestic production or we can place greater dependence on foreign suppliers and further delay energy independence. Given the choice, I would rather produce more American energy and create more American jobs.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in these last days our sympathies have been stirred by the shocking images of suffering and loss that have come from Burma. Last week's cyclone was one of the most devastating in memory. The damage to Burma's infrastructure, to its cities and towns and villages, is staggering.

The human toll won't be known for weeks. As many as 100,000 are thought to be dead. Thousands more are unaccounted for and injured. And those who survived face grave challenges. By all accounts, potable water and food are scarce, increasing the threat of disease. And shelter is hard to find.

This kind of suffering tests our powers of comprehension. But the extent of the damage, combined with the already primitive economic conditions imposed by the Burmese regime and the regime's sluggish response to the storm, means this suffering will be far greater than it otherwise might have been and will last far longer than it otherwise would.

We have heard reports that little or no notice was given to the people about the severity of the storm. And while the U.S. and other donors have expressed a clear willingness to assist, the Burmese regime has continued to resist allowing outside donors, such as the U.S., in.

The U.S. has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to help the victims of natural disasters. Our generous response to the 2004; tsunami is a tribute to generosity and compassion of Americans, as was our response to the flooding of Bangladesh in the early 1990s. We responded generously to the 1990 earthquake in the Philippines, an act of kindness that was met with deep gratitude. The U.S. has helped this region of the world again and again, and now we stand willing to help the people of Burma.

Precious time has been, and continues to be, wasted. Why? Because rather than focusing on preparations for the storm, the political leaders in Burma were focused on a sham constitutional referendum scheduled for this Saturday. While all of the energies of government were needed to prepare for relief efforts, the regime was thinking of solidifying its control over the country. Its only concession to the critics--as the extent of the dead, the missing, and the injured became known--was an agreement to postpone the referendum in certain parts of the country.

This is not the first time the Burmese regime has put the political risks of letting in outsiders over urgent humanitarian needs. In 2004, the same junta rejected foreign aid after the tsunami. The only difference this time is that the devastation to Burma and the Burmese people is on a much larger scale.

If Saturday's referendum were legitimate, its timing would be merely irresponsible and crass. Yet everything about this Saturday's referendum is a farce. The process leading up to it has been marked by oppressive measures that, of course, are not typically associated with free and open political debate. It's a crime, for instance, to criticize the document.

The substance of the constitution is also profoundly antidemocratic. It prohibits Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the party that won Burma's last free and democratic election, from holding high office. Former political prisoners and activists could find themselves unable to run for Parliament. And the Burmese military would control key ministries and hold a quarter of the seats in the national legislature.

This is not a constitution. This is a fig leaf to place over the junta's oppressive rule.

The people of Burma are already suffering from the tragedy of a terrible natural disaster. Now they are being forced to participate in a farce. Last week's cyclone revealed more than nature's power and life's fragility. It revealed, once again, the inhumanity of Burmese junta--not only in its disregard for the people suffering from the storm, but also in its callous insistence that, in the midst of so much suffering, a sham constitutional referendum validating its authority go forward.

This is a time of great sadness in Burma. It is also a time of renewed outrage at the oppressive regime that controls it. On occasion, the leaders of such regimes reveal their warped minds to the world. This is such a time. It's my hope the world will take notice.

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

Mr. President, I am going to proceed on my leader time.