Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. On the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where these Michigan circuit judges are needed so desperately, isn't it true right now that Federal district judges are having to go to the Sixth Circuit and be seated because of the judicial crisis we have on the Sixth Circuit?

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I pay tribute to Margaret Ann Hoffman of Walton, KY on being recognized as one of America's top principals in the 2003 National Distinguished Principal Program by the U.S. Department of Education. The annual National Distinguished Principals Program was established in 1984 to honor elementary and middle school principals who set high standards for the pace, character, and quality of the education their students receive. Ms. Hoffman, a principal at Fort Wright Elementary School, in Covington, KY, has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education for her tireless work in exhibiting excellence at Fort Wright Elementary School and has made outstanding contributions to the Covington community. Ms. Hoffman sets an example of excellence for the rest of the faculty, and the faculty follows that example. She inspires her students to achieve academically and contribute to the community. I know ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking Margaret Ann Hoffman for her dedication and commitment to the education of America's future. In order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must have principals like Margaret Ann Hoffman in our schools, and communities, and lives. She is Kentucky at its finest.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1753, the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003. As we all know, reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is a very important issue for the financial services industry and for consumers. When I talk to my friends in this sector, it is always the first thing they ask about. It touches everyone and their money and our national economy. It is critical that we act on it before adjournment. I believe that the Banking Committee under the leadership of Chairman Shelby has created a fair, bipartisan bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. We have been talking about this issue for several years. We have held a number of hearings on it. We looked it over pretty thoroughly, and I think we have come up with a reasonable approach. Most importantly, we have to act now because this bill is also important to our overall economy. Last week we had great economic news. Our economy is roaring back and that is good news for everyone. But if we fail to pass this bill, it could end up being a serious speed bump on the road to a better economy. If there is one thing that markets hate, it is uncertainty. They want to know where we are and where we are going. For better or worse, the markets think we are going to pass this bill. They think we are going to outline a stable path for financial institutions when it comes to the sharing of information. Any talk or any sign from Congress that makes the markets think that we aren't going to pass this bill would create a great deal of uncertainty in the financial markets. Now that our economy is really coming to life, that is the last thing we need. If the markets think we are going to let the FCRA lapse, they are going to get very jittery very quickly. I can understand that. This is a sensitive, complicated area. I don't think any of us wants the FCRA to lapse. We need Federal preemption in this area. I think it would be a mistake to let States and localities all try to impose their own privacy rules. There are trillions of dollars at stake. We have to be very careful. But if we fail to pass this bill, we open a Pandora's box of States and localities writing their own rules, and the markets and financial institutions just are not prepared for that. We can't let that happen. We don't need that uncertainty now. Who knows what would happen. On a personal note, I am very pleased that the bill contains strong identity theft and privacy protections, including my amendment on Social Security number truncation that will help prevent thieves who go ``dumpster diving'' or try to steal credit reports from mail boxes. Identity theft is a growing problem in America. The Internet is making it easier for thieves to obtain consumer information. My amendment will help fight this growing menace. Under this bill, consumers can block out their Social Security number on their credit reports. It is just the sort of simple, commonsense approach that will help consumers without burdening business. I would also like to talk about the amendments that are going to be offered by my colleagues from California. They are based, in large part, on a California bill, SB1. I am sure California has a fine legislature. And I am sure their representatives try their best to represent their California constituents. But I do not think the California legislature represents the people of Kentucky or the other States very well. That is not their job. If we adopt the amendments to be offered by my friends, it would have the effect of imposing California's rules on the rest of the Nation. That is a bad idea that will only lead to the economic uncertainty we have to avoid. If California wants to try to craft their own rules and work with Federal regulators, I say more power to them--but not if it puts a crimp on the national economy or starts rewriting the rules for the other 49 States. Our credit system is a national system and it needs a national standard. Standards that may work in California or Kentucky may not work for the country as a whole. Usually I am all for taking power away from Washington and sending it back to the States and local government. But on this bill we cannot ignore the fact that credit rules and markets and money are all part of a broader, national economy that requires a unified, Federal approach. To let States undermine that would be a recipe for disaster. S. 1753 is a fair and balanced bill that sets a fair and balanced standard for our entire Nation. It is bipartisan, it is common sense, and it is a prudent solution to a pressing problem for our financial institutions.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1753, the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003. As we all know, reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is a very important issue for the financial services industry and for consumers. When I talk to my friends in this sector, it is always the first thing they ask about. It touches everyone and their money and our national economy. It's critical that we act on it before adjournment. I believe that the Banking Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Shelby, has created a fair, bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues go support it. We have been talking about this issue for several years. We have held a number of hearings on it. We looked it over pretty thoroughly, and I think we have come up with a reasonable approach. Most importantly, we have to act now because this bill is also important to our overall economy. Last week, we had great economic news. Our economy is roaring back and that is good news for everyone. But if we fail to pass this bill, it could end up being a serious speed bump on the road to a better economy. If there is one thing that markets hate, it is uncertainty. They want to know where we are and where we are going. For better or worse, the markets think we are going to pass this bill. They think we are going to outline a stable path for financial institutions when it comes to the sharing of information. Any talk or any sign from Congress that makes the markets think that we are not going to pass this bill would create a great deal of uncertainty in the financial markets. Now that our economy is really coming to life, that is the last thing we need. If the markets think we are going to let the FCRA lapse, they are going to get very jittery very quickly. I can understand that. This is a sensitive, complicated area. I don't think any of us wants the FCRA to lapse. We need Federal preemption in this area. I think it would be a mistake to let States and localities all try to impose their own privacy rules. There are trillions of dollars at stake. We have to be very careful. But if we fail to pass this bill, we open a Pandora's box of States and localities writing their own rules, and the markets and financial institutions just are not prepared for that. We can't let that happen. We don't need that uncertainty now. Who knows what would happen. On a personal note, I am very pleased that the bill contains strong identity theft and privacy protections, including my amendment on social security number truncation that will help prevent thieves who go ``dumpster diving'' or try to steal credit reports from mail boxes. Identity theft is a growing problem in America. The internet is making it easier for thieves to access consumer information. My amendment will help fight this growing menace. Under this bill, consumers can block out their social security number on their credit reports. It's just the sort of simple, commonsense approach that will help consumers without burdening business. I would also like to talk about the amendments that are going to be offered by my colleagues from California. They are based, in large part, on a California bill, SB1. I am sure California has a fine legislature. And I am sure there representatives try their best to represent their California constituents. But I do not think the California Legislature represents the people of Kentucky or the other States very well. That's not their job. If we adopt the amendments to be offered by my friends, it would have the effect of imposing California's rules on the rest of the Nation. That's a bad idea that will only lead to the economic uncertainty we have to avoid. If California wants to try to craft their own rules and work with Federal regulators, I say more power to them--but not if it puts a crimp on the national economy or starts rewriting the rules for the other 49 States. Our credit system is a national system and it needs a national standard. Standards that may work in California or Kentucky may not work for the country as a whole. Usually I am all for taking power away from Washington and sending it back to the States and local government. But on this bill, we cannot ignore the fact that credit rules and markets and money are all part of a broader, national economy that requires a unified, Federal approach. To let States undermine that would be a recipe for disaster. S. 1739 is a fair and balanced bill that sets a fair and balanced standard for our entire Nation. It's bipartisan, it's common sense, and it's a prudent solution to a pressing problem for our financial institutions. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate Mrs. Lillian S. Robinson of Mt. Sterling, KY on her selection as a 2003 Experience Works Time Award honoree. Mrs. Robinson was nominated for this award for her dedication to the educationm of the children of Kentucky. A youthful 83, she serves as the assistant director of the Community Education Program in Montgomery County, where she organizes volunteer programs including Pee Wee Basketball, the Cookie Candy Club and Parent-Child Tea. The citizens of Kentucky are fortunate to have the leadership of Mrs. Robinson. Her example of dedication, hard work and compassion should be an inspiration to all throughout the Commonwealth. Congratulations, Mrs. Robinson for receiving the 2003 Outstanding Older Workers award. You have my most sincere appreciation for your work and I look forward to your continued service to your of our Commonwealth.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate the members of the Frenchburg Job Corps of Mariba, KY on their ``Make A Difference Day'' program. The Frenchburg Jobs Corps conducted a wide-ranging program of community service in Northern Kentucky. From cleaning parks to building handicap accessible ramps to visiting the elderly, these Kentuckians truly made a difference on October 24, 2003. The citizens of Kentucky are fortunate to have the leadership of the Frenchburg Job Corps. Their example of dedication, hard work, and compassion should be an inspiration to all throughout the Commonwealth. They have my most sincere appreciation for this work, and I look forward to their continued service to Kentucky.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I speak today in support of Judge Charles Pickering and his nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Pickering was unanimously confirmed to be a Federal district judge in 1990, where he has served honorably ever since. He graduated first in his law school class at the University of Mississippi while serving on the Law Journal and Moot Court. In addition to practicing in a law firm, Judge Pickering was both a city and county prosecutor and a municipal court judge. Judge Pickering continued his public service in the Mississippi State Senate. He also has served his fellow man by helping others through organizations like the Red Cross and the March of Dimes. Judge Pickering has also devoted his life to Christ, serving at the First Baptist Church in Laurel, MS, as a Sunday school teacher and a deacon. Those things tell us much about the man that Charles Pickering is. But there is much more. You see, Judge Pickering has spent his career as a leader in race relations in Mississippi. What is truly telling, however, is he spent his whole career tearing down barriers for minorities in the South, including during the 1960s and 1970s. Those actions did not make him a popular man among many in Mississippi at the time. I remember the 1960s and 1970s. I regularly traveled around the country during those years and I remember what race relations were like in the South and throughout America. I remember what it was like as professional baseball gradually accepted then embraced minorities. It was a tumultuous time in our country and many brave men and women willingly staked their careers, their reputations, and even their lives on doing what was just and right. Charles Pickering was one of those men. The stories of how Judge Pickering stepped above the fray and reached out to bring racial equality to Mississippi have been told many times. In recent years Judge Pickering has served on race relations committees in Mississippi including the Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi. He has spent time working with at-risk minority children. Those actions are laudable in and of themselves, but the actions that tell the true story of who Charles Pickering really is come from the 1960s and 1970s, those years when racial tensions were at their highest and the South was so volatile. In 1967 Judge Pickering was Prosecuting Attorney Pickering in Jones County, MS. Knowing it was to his own personal detriment, Charles Pickering took the witness stand to testify against the ``Imperial Wizard'' of the Ku Klux Klan in a trial for killing a black civil rights activist in a fire-bombing attack. By standing up for equality and justice, Prosecuting Attorney Pickering put himself and his family in danger and lost his reelection. You can never really judge the strength of a man's convictions until standing up for those beliefs costs him something. Judge Pickering's willingness to stand up against racial violence cost him his job as a prosecutor. But that did not dissuade him from continuing to fight for racial justice. Possibly the most contentious race issue in the 1960s and 1970s was the integration of the public schools. Integration came to Laurel, MS, in 1973. Integration has been fought for years and creating a plan was not an easy task. The black and white communities in Laurel were split and Charles Pickering worked to bring them together and create a plan to integrate the schools. In the end many white families still moved their children to private schools to avoid integration and Judge Pickering easily could have done the same with his kids. Instead, he believed in integration and kept his children in the public schools. Unfortunately, the reason Charles Pickering has been singled out by the radical left has nothing to do with the man or his qualifications. It has everything to do with ideology and the remaining adherents of a failed liberal orthodoxy holding on to their last vestiges of power in this Nation--the courts. A radical liberal minority in this country is scared of Judge Pickering. They do not think he will do a bad job because he is unqualified. After all, the American Bar Association rated Judge Pickering ``well qualified.'' Last I had heard, the liberal minority obstructing Judge Pickering's nomination called that rating their gold standard for judicial nominees. The reason the liberal special interests are scared of Judge Pickering is that he is a judge who knows his role, who follows the law, and has a stellar civil rights record. These special interests have lost out in the public opinion and mainstream politics. They cannot successfully achieve their goals in the normal course of governance so they turn to the court system, which they have successfully used to roll back traditional values, traditional roles of Government, and individual rights. A judge with a proven record of following the law and understanding the difference between the legislature and the judiciary is a roadblock in their path of legislating through the judiciary. I really believe Judge Pickering was singled out because of his stellar record on civil rights. It seems to me the liberal special interest groups that seem to be dictating the moves of the minority party in the Senate needed a test case to see if they could stop President Bush's nominees at will. They researched all his nominees and picked one who would be impossible to defeat on the merits and decided to distort his record and assassinate his character. They needed to see if they could get away with it. So last year they gave it a shot. And it worked. These special interests found willing accomplices in the Senate and in the media. Facts became irrelevant as lies flew and Charles Pickering was demagogued. But that was only a preview of what was to come. While the filibustering by a minority of the Senate of Judge Pickering is an abdication of constitutional responsibility of the Senate, the wholesale assault on President Bush's nominees is truly egregious. Judge Pickering is not alone. The minority has taken aim at Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen, and Henry Saad. Each nominee has a fantastic story and a stellar record. Each has been singled out for his or her adherence to the law and the traditional roles of government. Radical liberals have long fancied themselves as the champions of women and minorities in this country, and I have no doubt that many on the left do strive for equality for all Americans. But the radical left has achieved its power through the politics of division. A conservative Hispanic or conservative woman or conservative Arab or conservative black woman or conservative religious man is anathema to their dominance of these issues. Rather than celebrating the achievements of these gifted human beings ascending to the job for which he or she was selected by the President of the United States, these ultra liberals would rather defame their characters and demagogue their beliefs. There seems to be no end in sight to these tactics and political showdowns. But I hope and pray that day will soon come.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this legislation, S. 139. We have disputes over the scientific evidence on global climate change. And we can debate that science all day and never agree. I believe the science we have seen does not support the need to engage in questionable policies to control so-called ``global warming''. We need more evidence that the climate is actually affected by emissions, especially carbon emissions, before we act too quickly. Let's make sure we really look before we leap. Instead of arguing over scientific data, we should examine the impact S. 139 could have on American jobs and the economy. This bill limits emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010. This includes regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. I am proud to be from a coal state. Generations of Kentuckians from Pike County to Crittenden County have worked in the coal fields and mines. Coal plays an important role in our economy. More than half of our nation's electricity is generated from low-cost domestic coal. We have over 275 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves. This is about 30 percent of the world's coal supply. That's enough to supply us with energy for more than 250 years. But this bill places caps on carbon. This has a negative affect on energy production because it affects the amount of coal we can use. This will mean loss of jobs, particularly for workers in Kentucky and other coal states. It also increases energy prices. Just as our economy is starting to turn around. We just don't need this. I hope the energy bill encourages renewable fuels as well as clean coal so that we are not relying so much on foreign oil. S. 139 goes in the other direction of the energy bill. It drives the use of natural gas instead of coal. Placing caps on carbon means coal production will be 100 million tons lower in 2010 than what we expect to produce in 2003. That is 25 percent below our expected 2003 level of coal production. I have heard from coal operators in Kentucky who are on the verge of closing their doors because of natural gas prices. But S. 139 causes an even worse situation. According to one analysis, it increases natural gas prices by 79 percent. By forcing reliance on natural gas and a reduction in coal production, this bill results in a loss of 460,000 jobs through 2025 and electricity bills will increase 46 percent. We already have a natural gas shortage. And for a decade coal was on the downturn because of governmental policies. These policies have caused our demand for natural gas to exceed the supply. High gas prices cause Americans to experience difficulties. With the winter coming, prices are expected to go up and put a noose on the American pocketbook. We must focus on increasing production and using a variety of energy sources. Failing to do this puts our energy independence and national security at stake. We are turning the corner on the economy and job growth. The last quarter grew by 7.2 percent. We do not need to be losing jobs or causing more companies to shut down business because of increased energy prices caused by the government. The climate issue is being addressed in other ways that are more conducive to job creation and economic growth. We are becoming more energy efficient. Energy efficiency has improved 20 percent since 1990. This means that emissions have declined. In fact, we are expected to reduce emissions by 14 percent by 2012 without any new emission regulations. Our automobiles are more efficient and running at a higher fuel efficiency than they did just a few a years go. However, S. 139 ignores the strides we have made and could bring us back to 1970s gas rationing. As a consequence of this rationing, the cost of gasoline is expected to increase 27 percent. This increases fuel costs, and further slows our recovery, and takes money out of the pockets of Americans. I don't see why we should vote to increase energy costs and unemployment. Voting for this bill does that. It may make us feel better to support this bill because of its environmental symbolism. But I will choose substance over symbolism any day. American jobs are of substance. Getting a green star by your name on an environmental group's web site is symbolic. And while that may make one feel good, watching Americans lose jobs from this kind of legislation won't. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I pay tribute to Mary Alice Zettel of Bardstown, KY, on being recognized as one of the Nation's top principals in the 2003 National Distinguished Principal Program by the U.S. Department of Education. The annual National Distinguished Principals Program was established in 1984 to honor elementary and middle school principals who set high standards for the pace, character, and quality of the education their students receive. Ms. Zettel, a principal at Holy Trinity Parish School in Louisville, KY, has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education for her tireless work in exhibiting excellence at Holy Trinity Parish School and has made outstanding contributions to the Louisville community. It has been said when entering Holy Trinity Parish School you will hear Ms. Zettel's laughter and happiness throughout its hallways. Ms. Zettel sets an example of excellence for the rest of the faculty, and the faculty follows that example, and she inspires her students to achieve academically and contribute to the community. I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking Mary Alice Zettel for her dedication and commitment to the education of America's future. In order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must have principals like Mary Alice Zettel in our schools and communities.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has agreed to pass S. Con. Res. 21, the Direct Support Professional Recognition Resolution. Earlier this year, I introduced this bipartisan resolution with Senator Lincoln. This resolution recognizes the importance of direct support professionals who are responsible for helping those with mental retardation and disabilities integrate into and excel in communities across the nation. These professionals provide a wide range of supportive services to their clients on a daily basis, including habitation, health needs, personal care and hygiene, employment, transportation, recreation, housekeeping and other home management-related supports and services so that these individuals can live and work in their communities. These jobs are demanding both physically and emotionally, and these direct support professionals should be commended for the important work they do. This resolution and action by the Senate recognizes just how important they are to others in need. The recruitment and retention of quality, trained direct support workers is critical to providing high-quality support and services to disabled individuals. Unfortunately, there is a crisis in the direct support field, particularly in finding and keeping quality direct support workers. In fact, the annual turnover rates of direct support workers range from 40 percent and 75 percent. Several factors have contributed to this crisis, including a tightened labor market, growing demand for community-based care, and legal decisions supporting community integration. Unfortunately, many parents who rely on direct support professionals to help care for with disabled child in the community are becoming concerned that these professionals may not be available in the future. No parent should be faced with these types of worries. This resolution draws much-needed attention to the problems surrounding the long-term care infrastructure for individuals with developmental disabilities who live in their communities. The resolution calls on the Federal and State governments to make it a priority to promote a quality, stable direct support workforce that advances this nation's commitment to community integration for individuals with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities. Without well-trained and quality direct support professionals, many disabled individuals may find living in the community more difficult. We shouldn't let that happen, and I hope this resolution can help focus Congress's and the Nation's attention on this important matter. I am grateful for the Senate's passage of this resolution and its concern for our direct support professionals and those individuals they care for.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, today I come to the floor with joy in my heart knowing we will finally put an end to the death of unborn children through partial-birth abortions. I am joyful that our efforts will not go in vain this year because President Bush is eager to sign this bill. But my heart is also heavy knowing that this procedure has gone on too long. Too many children have died in this horrific way. The vast majority of Congress has been trying for the better part of a decade to ban partial-birth abortions but has been stymied by President Clinton and the current minority party in the Senate. I am glad the days of obstruction and vetoes have come to an end and this bill will become law. I can think of no more clear-cut case between right and wrong. All one needs to know is a description of the process to understand how wrong partial-birth abortions are. First, an abortionist induces dilation of the mother so the baby can be almost fully delivered. Next, the baby is delivered to the point that only its head remains inside the mother. Third, the child is stabbed in the back of the skull with scissors or some other sharp object. Finally, a tube is used to suck the child's brains out of the hole left by the stabbing. There is no gray area or middle ground when it comes to this procedure and there are no justifications for it. The child is delivered to within inches of breathing its first breath. If the doctor lets the head of the baby slip just an inch or two, the child would be born and the doctor would be prosecuted for murder. Nevertheless, some abortion supporters cannot see through the fog of their fervor to realize just how wrong that is. I do not mean to suggest that there is widespread support for partial-birth abortions. There is not. The vast majority of the American people want the procedure to end. Congress has voted overwhelmingly many times in the last few years to enact a ban like the one before the Senate today. Most doctors oppose the procedure including quite a few who perform other forms of abortion. There is no evidence that this procedure is ever necessary to preserve the health of the mother. In fact, it is quite dangerous. Babies being killed in this manner can feel the pain of its skull being pierced and have been seen writhing in pain, flailing tiny arms and legs until its skull collapses after its brains have been vacuumed out. I do not understand how anyone can believe this should go on. Doctors and medical researchers have made great progress in fetal health care. Babies can be operated on while still in the womb. Premature babies can survive outside their mother at younger and younger ages. With those and other advancements Americans are continually placing a greater value of life. By passing this law Congress will further advance the cause of life and send an unmistakable message that ours is a just society that values every human being and believes in the sanctity of life. I look forward to President Bush signing this bill into law. I am proud of his support of this bill and for life.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I pay tribute to the Fern Creek Quilt Lovers for the charity and goodwill they have demonstrated to ailing children in Kentucky. The Fern Creek Quilt Lovers, which is a group of approximately a dozen members, has been meeting for several years at the home of one of the members for ``quilt work day.'' The group sews in the morning, breaks for lunch, and then returns to the quilting work in the afternoon. This work has rendered over 500 quilts in the past several years, each of which has been donated to Kosair Children's Hospital. Kosair Children's Hospital, a hospital in Louisville, KY, is home to many critically ill children. The most severely ill of these children in Kosair Children's Hospital each receive a quilt as a gift of love and compassion. Often, as the Fern Creek Quilt Lovers hope, these quilts provide more than just warmth and comfort to these children, but hope as well. I am grateful to the Senate to allow me to honor and recognize the Fern Creek Quilt Lovers today. I appreciate their loyalty to Kentucky and their community. They have been a shining example of leadership, hard work, and compassion. They are an inspiration to all throughout the Commonwealth. Congratulations, Fern Creek Quilt Lovers. You are Kentucky at its finest.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in the Senate to honor and pay tribute to Charleen Combs and Bob Harris for each being named the Kentucky Small Business Person of the Year. Almost 20 years ago, Charleen Combs and Bob Harris found themselves in a quandary. Their employer had been sold and was downsizing, but Charleen and Bob used this setback as a catalyst to strike out independently and started planning the formation for their own software development company. In Harlan, KY in 1983, Charleen and Bob established Data Futures Inc. Today, it has carved its own sizable niche, producing and providing administrative software to K-12 school districts and health care facilities throughout Kentucky and other states. Data Futures is an outstanding example of how two Kentuckians used their entrepreneurial talent, drive and vision to create opportunities not just for themselves, but for others. What began as a humble home- based computer services business almost 20 years ago is now a leading developer of management systems software for school districts in at least seven States. Eastern Kentucky is fortunate to have Data Future as a home-based business. But more importantly, it is fortunate to have Charleen and Bob call Eastern Kentucky home. I appreciate their loyalty to Kentucky and their community. They have been a shining example of leadership, hard work, and compassion. They are an inspiration to all throughout the Commonwealth. Congratulations, Charleen and Bob. You are Kentucky at its finest.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Adewale Troutman. Dr. Troutman was recently appointed to the position of Louisville Metro Health Director. Dr. Troutman, who formerly served as head of the health department in Fulton, GA, will also serve Kentucky as a faculty member of the University of Louisville's School of Public Health. Dr. Troutman hails from New York City's South Bronx and has considerable health care experience in both the United States and Nigeria. In addition to serving as head of the health department in Fulton, GA, he has also served as a senior scientist at Morehouse University College of Medicine with former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher. Dr. Troutman brings vision and leadership to a position that will influence the well-being and livelihoods of many Kentuckians. Some of the issues Dr. Troutman endeavors to undertake include access to health care for the uninsured and the disparity in health services based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. I am pleased to honor Dr. Troutman as a new addition to Kentucky's health care leadership. We are fortunate to have his direction and look forward to the considerable progress his tenure and administration promises to produce. I thank the Senate for allowing me to pay tribute to our newest Kentuckian.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, the Commonwealth of Kentucky lost one of its greatest statesman on October 14, 2003. Former Gov. Ned Breathitt left us last night and is on his way to a better place. Governor Breathitt left a great imprint on Kentucky's history and his bloodline ran deep in Kentucky's heritage. There is even a Breathitt County which is named after his distant uncle who was also a Governor of Kentucky. Kentuckians elected Ned Breathitt as their Governor in 1963. He served until 1967 with great leadership and accomplishment. The 1960s were somewhat and sometimes tumultuous for the South. Governor Breathitt's progressive politics and compassion for all enabled him to be one of the true civil rights leaders in Kentucky. With conviction and purpose, he fought racial discrimination and ushered in a lasting equality for Kentuckians. Governor Breathitt also worked tirelessly to help improve our schools and education system in Kentucky. He truly believed that Kentucky's pride and best assets were its citizens. This led him to create and implement the community college system under the University of Kentucky, and to this day it is one of the best systems around. Besides wanting to ensure Kentuckians a strong education, he also was deeply concerned about their health and environment. This led him to help strengthen our conversation and environmental laws, and ensuring that our pristine treasures and waters were protected and preserved for generations to come. But aside from him being my Governor, he was also my friend. Whan I first arrived in Congress in 1987, Ned and his wife Lucy were living in Washington, DC. They welcomed my wife Mary and me with open arms. We were newcomers to the area and Ned and Lucy had moved out a few years before we did. We became good friends. We played bridge together, dined out and socialized together. We all laughed a lot. Mary and I enjoyed their company so much. Our prayers and thoughts go out to Lucy and her family. We all know it is difficult to lose a loved one. But Lucy is strong. I know she is left with the comfort that Ned is in a better place, that his life was extraordinary in the way it touched others, and that he loved her and their family and Kentucky so dearly. Ned Breathitt was as good as they come. He was Kentucky at its best.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to raise a few points on the war on terror and offer my support for the President's supplemental request. First, I am compelled to address the latest round of attacks against the President's request to fund our Armed Forces and rebuilding efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We are at war. We may not have tens of thousands of soldiers storming the beaches of Normandy. There are no forces with tanks positioned against a potential Soviet advance into Europe. But let there be no misunderstanding. The war against terror is every bit as important as our fight against fascism in World War II. Or our struggle against the spread of communism during the cold war. I have full confidence that Kentuckians and the American people realize this. But sometimes I wonder if some of my colleagues do, because appeasement in this war is not an option. Over the past decade, we have seen the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, 19 American soldiers dead in the bombing of the Kohbar Towers, and two U.S. Embassies in Africa blown up in 1996, and the bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000. And then, instead of facing the threat of Islamic radicalism, we virtually looked the other way, and sent American forces as peacekeepers elsewhere into places like Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. We still have thousands of American peacekeepers in Bosnia and Kosovo. And these roles should be played by European forces who refuse to get serious about cleaning up their own backyard. During the 1990s, the Western world was riding high as the cold war ended. Millions of people around the world found their first taste of freedom. Anti-American rhetoric was a mere fraction of what it is today. The global economy was humming along quite nicely. However, some in the world digressed as we progressed. The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan with its brutal regime over the Afghan people. Afghan girls were kept out of school. The regime executed political and religious dissidents. And al-Qaida established training camps freely under the Taliban government. Saddam Hussein never accounted for his weapons of mass destruction programs. He kicked out the UN weapons inspectors. He defied UN resolutions. He made payments to families of suicide bombers. Mass graves were filled with bodies. He was a destabilizing threat. And we let our guard down. We all know what happened next-- 9/11. And that day changed everything. President Bush and Members of Congress from both parties vowed never again to let our guard down. We vowed to protect the American people at all costs. And the war on terror began. Difficult times require difficult decisions, but supporting this bill shouldn't be a difficult decision. Let's show our resolve with our commitment to finish this war on terror. Passing this supplemental will help get us closer. We cannot pull back out of Iraq now, and should a vote come up in the Senate to pull our support out of Iraq, it would fail overwhelmingly. Contrary to what opponents say, the war in Iraq is neither a ``fraud,'' a ``quagmire,'' nor a ``miserable failure.'' This would suggest that our troops sent to liberate Iraq and fight terrorism have died in vain. Nothing could be further from the truth. From watching the news, one would think the Iraqis want us out of their country. But an overwhelming majority of Iraqis support our involvement there. Our freedom is contagious and we helped liberate them. Much progress has been made in relatively little time. American troops stayed in Germany for 4 years and Japan for 7. We are still in Bosnia and Kosovo. We can't expect democracy overnight. Saddam invested in palaces and terror and not his economic infrastructure. Many Iraqis had to wait until Saddam was gone to find their loved ones in one of his mass graves. It is now time to ensure that the days of mass graves in Iraq ends. Our military forces deserve quick Congressional action on this bill. I have been following the 101st Airborne in Iraq. They are based at Fort Campbell, KY. Just this week, the commanding general of the 101st, General Petraeus, told me that over in Iraq ``money is ammunition. It's the key to all we are doing.'' The 101st is doing some great work in northern Iraq. Besides killing Saddam's two sons and accepting the surrender of Saddam's Defense Minister, the 101st has worked on over 3,200 projects in the rebuilding of Iraq. These range from repairing schools to repairing oil refineries. They are doing truly remarkable work along with all our forces. Some in Congress believe we should make the rebuilding funds a loan and not a grant. I oppose this approach. While Iraq certainly has the resources to become a wealthy country, its revenue from oil should be used to invest in its own future, not to pay off old debts incurred under Saddam or be burdened with the debts of a loan as it tries to transition to a free economy. And besides, there is no established Iraq government to transfer a loan to. I find great irony in the arguments of some who oppose the war. Many argued this war was all about the President's desire for oil. Now many of these same people say we should use Iraqi oil to repay our Government. And President Bush is leading the charge on allowing Iraqis to keep their oil revenues for themselves. Planning for an Iraqi oil fund is now in the works. It will give Iraqis a stake in the future of their country for the first time. Funds would go to public goods, such as national defense, education, and infrastructure. This is the type of approach Iraq needs. We need to give the Iraqi people a hand up and not keep their heads down with debt. If we don't act swiftly on this bill and terrorism prevails in this war, then we risk having to fight this war on America's turf. And that is why it is so vital to defeat the enemy on its turf as opposed to allowing them to regroup and hit us at home as they did on 9/11. I don't like getting casualty notifications on soldiers, especially soldiers in my State, and I don't like it for anybody's state. No Senator likes seeing them. It is difficult. We all feel for the families and friends of the brave soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know what it is like for those with loved ones still there. My wife and I felt the same way when our son Bill served in Operation Desert Storm and later in Afghanistan. But we must remember that our cause is just and that we are on the right side of history. We must remember that the war on terror may continue for some time. I am going to repeat that because I want the American people to understand that the war on terror may continue for some time. I acknowledge that this is a difficult point for many Americans to grasp. Indeed, it is difficult for many of us. This is why it is time for us to move swiftly on this bill to protect our troops and help rebuild both countries. This bill is an investment in not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is an investment in our security, freedom, and future. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I am sure the Senator from Iowa will agree with me that we need to make it as easy as possible for loving families to either adopt or become foster parents for children in need. There is nothing more special than a family opening up their home to a child and providing a safe and supportive environment. This is why I have worked on adoption and foster care issues for so long in Congress. In fact, last year I was pleased that one of my foster care initiatives was passed as part of the 2002 economic stimulus bill. Many families who take in foster care children receive stipends from the placement agency which helps pay for food, clothes and other expenses. In the past, some of these stipends were tax-free for families, while others were taxable. I didn't feel that was fair, so my provision made all stipends that foster care families receive to be tax free. This provision corrected an inconsistency in the tax code that unfairly punished foster care families and the children for whom they care, and I was happy we could finally correct this problem.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Realistic Roofing Tax Treatment Act of 2003 which would amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide a more realistic depreciation schedule for commercial roofs. In 1981, Congress eliminated component depreciation and put into place a general depreciation period of 15 years for all building components. In 1993, the recovery period for nonresidential property was extended to 39 years in order to raise revenue. The current 39-year depreciation period is not a realistic measure of the average life span of a commercial roof. It is a disincentive for building owners to replace non-performing roofs, because replacing failing roofs more frequently than 39 years means carrying the burden of roofs that no longer exist on the books. A study by Ducker Worldwide, a leading industrial research firm, found the current aggregate commercial roof life span is 17.45 years. Ducker estimates that a shortened depreciation schedule will stimulate economic activity and generate 30,000 new jobs in a two-year period. I am particularly concerned that we help America's manufacturers and this legislation will provide them immediate tax relief. It will also provide relief to America's small businesses, which find it more difficult to absorb the impact of capital improvement expenditures than larger entities. Congressman Foley will shortly be introducing similar legislation in the House of Representatives. I am pleased that this proposal has the support of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, and I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation when it comes before the Senate.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce a bill that will address an issue of inequity in the U.S. Tax Code. Current tax law requires that certain production expenses of a product for sale by a manufacturer be capitalized into the inventory cost of that product. One such expense is the allocable portion of interest expenses that are attributable to equipment used in that production. However, this capitalization requirement only applies when the product being produced has a production period in excess of 2 years. The bill I am introducing today will clarify that, for the production of distilled spirits, the production period for purposes of this capitalization rule includes only the distilling of the liquor--it does not include time that the liquors are naturally aged following the distillation. This is an important clarification to insure that distilled spirits that are aged for long periods of time--in some cases many years--do not face adverse tax consequences merely due to this aging process. The clarification of this inequity will aid many small distilleries located in the United States by not forcing them to carry additional inventory costs over long periods of time. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like the opportunity to talk for a few minutes with my colleague from Iowa about the important role of adoption and foster care. Today, I am proud to be supporting legislation that the Senator from Iowa is introducing to reauthorize the Adoption Incentive Program. This is an important program that encourages States to do all they can to find permanent homes for children in foster care.

Mr. BUNNING. I am pleased that we are continuing the bonuses for States that increase the number of adoptions each year, along with keeping the additional incentive for adoptions of special needs children and providing a new incentive for States to focus on the adoptions of older children. I am proud to say that Kentucky has also done fairly well under the Adoption Incentive Program over the years, and I am glad we are continuing the program. From 1998 to 2001, Kentucky received $1.6 million adoption incentives. For 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services recently announced that my State will receive $204,000 in adoption incentives.

Mr. BUNNING. I certainly agree with you that the adoption tax credits are good policy, and I am very familiar with them. In fact, back in 1996, I worked as a Member of the Ways and Means Committee to pass the original legislation providing for the tax credits to help families afford to adopt children. We finally got this credit passed as part of the Small Business Job Protection Act which passed over seven years ago. I was very supportive of the provisions in the 2001 tax bill to expand these credits, but would like to take them one step further. Within the next couple of weeks, I will be introducing legislation to make these tax credits permanent. If we don't eliminate the sunset which was built into the tax bill, then the current maximum credit of $10,000 will be reduced back down to $5,000 in 2010. To me, this seems like a common-sense change that needs to be made. I introduced a similar bill in the 107th Congress, and I am hopeful that we can get this bill passed before the end of the 108th Congress.

Mr. BUNNING. Finally, I would like to say a few words about the importance of promoting interracial adoptions. In the past, many times there were barriers to families adopting minority children. This isn't fair to the family or the child. That is why in 1996, I pushed for legislation stopping discrimination against minority children in order to make it easier for them to move from foster care into a loving, permanent home. All of these initiatives are designed to help find permanent or temporary homes for our Nation's children. Today, we are taking another important step by reauthorizing the Adoption Incentive Program, and I hope that we can get this bill through the Senate and onto the President's desk soon.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Realistic Roofing Tax Treatment Act of 2003 which would amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide a more realistic depreciation schedule for commercial roofs. In 1981, Congress eliminated component depreciation and put into place a general depreciation period of 15 years for all building components. In 1993, the recovery period for nonresidential property was extended to 39 years in order to raise revenue. The current 39-year depreciation period is not a realistic measure of the average life span of a commercial roof. It is a disincentive for building owners to replace non-performing roofs, because replacing failing roofs more frequently than 39 years means carrying the burden of roofs that no longer exist on the books. A study by Ducker Worldwide, a leading industrial research firm, found the current aggregate commercial roof life span is 17.45 years. Ducker estimates that a shortened depreciation schedule will stimulate economic activity and generate 30,000 new jobs in a two-year period. I am particularly concerned that we help America's manufacturers and this legislation will provide them immediate tax relief. It will also provide relief to America's small businesses, which find it more difficult to absorb the impact of capital improvement expenditures than larger entities. Congressman Foley will shortly be introducing similar legislation in the House of Representatives. I am pleased that this proposal has the support of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, and I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation when it comes before the Senate.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce a bill that will address an issue of inequity in the U.S. Tax Code. Current tax law requires that certain production expenses of a product for sale by a manufacturer be capitalized into the inventory cost of that product. One such expense is the allocable portion of interest expenses that are attributable to equipment used in that production. However, this capitalization requirement only applies when the product being produced has a production period in excess of 2 years. The bill I am introducing today will clarify that, for the production of distilled spirits, the production period for purposes of this capitalization rule includes only the distilling of the liquor--it does not include time that the liquors are naturally aged following the distillation. This is an important clarification to insure that distilled spirits that are aged for long periods of time--in some cases many years--do not face adverse tax consequences merely due to this aging process. The clarification of this inequity will aid many small distilleries located in the United States by not forcing them to carry additional inventory costs over long periods of time. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.