Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Kentucky Vehicle Enforcement Officer Duffy Sutton for receiving the Jason Cammack Officer of the Year Award. Officer Sutton's commitment, dedication, and devotion to service have earned him this award. The award is named after Jason Cammack who was a good friend of Duffy Sutton. Jason died during 2000 while in pursuit of a vehicle in Midway, KY. As a Kentucky Vehicle Enforcement Officer, Sutton has, throughout the past 4 years, written 1,203 citations, issued 242 warnings, conducted 508 safety inspections, opened 29 cases, secured six DUI's and totaled 60 arrests. For 3 consecutive years, he has won the Buckle Up Kentucky Enforcement Award. Officer Sutton began his career in 1988 as a weigh- station inspector where he has progressed to becoming a vehicle enforcement officer serving 7 southeastern Kentucky counties. Officer Sutton has also contributed to fighting the war on drugs. To his credit, one of the largest drug busts in Kentucky history took place in 1997 after pulling over a tractor-trailer carrying 839 pounds of marijuana. In a later arrest, Officer Sutton was responsible for seizing 51 pounds of marijuana. The example set by Officer Sutton should be recognized by law enforcement officers throughout Kentucky. Fighting the war on drugs, securing our homeland, and ensuring that Kentucky roads and highways are as safe as possible depend on law enforcement officers with the caliber of Duffy Sutton. His demonstration of public service on and off duty provide a model example for citizens throughout Kentucky and across America.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I pay tribute to the Greenup County High School Varsity Cheerleading Squad. On February 9, the Greenup County High School Varsity Cheerleading Squad won the Universal Cheerleading Association's National Championship in Orlando, FL. Greenup County High School has a long standing tradition of bringing home the national title. Over the years, Greenup County has been named National Champions 11 times, a feat that no other high school cheerleading program in the country has accomplished. For the young women on this squad this is not just an trophy, it is an affirmation that with hard work and determination, anything is possible. To accomplish this goal the members not only have to juggle long practices and games, but they continue to achieve academic excellence. Not only are these young women excellent athletes and students but they pride themselves in giving back to their community for support they have received by doing community service, fundraising, and public relations for their school system. The citizens of Greenup County, KY are fortunate to have the 2003 National Champions living and learning in their community. Their example of hard work and determination should be followed by all in the Commonwealth. I am very proud of the accomplishments these young women have made. I would like to congratulate the members of the Greenup County High School Varsity Cheerleading Squad for their success. But also, I want to congratulate their peers, coaches, teachers, administrators, and parents for their support and sacrifices they've made to help the Greenup County High School Varsity Cheerleading Squad make their dreams a reality.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the Morehead State University Varsity Cheerleaders. The squad was named the national champions in the Universal Cheerleaders Association-sponsored competition earlier this year. The Morehead State University coed varsity cheerleading squad was awarded their 13th national title in Division I. Along with winning the overall title, Morehead State University won the all-girl partner stunt competition and received second place in the all-girl squad. The citizens of Morehead, KY should be proud to have Morehead State University cheerleading champs living and learning in their community. Their example of hard work and determination should be followed by all in the Commonwealth. I would like to congratulate the members of the varsity squad for their success. But also, I want to congratulate their coach, Myron Doan, along with their peers, faculty, administrators, and parents for their support and sacrifices they have made to help meet those achievements and dreams.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I support ratification of the Moscow Treaty without any amendments or further conditions set upon it by the Senate. Ratifying this resolution as it was unanimously reported out of the Committee on Foreign Relations is the right thing to do. This treaty is a tremendous step forward in the effort to make this world a safer place. This is especially significant in light of all that is going on in the world with our fight against terrorism. It is especially important and significant to work in this way with the Russian Federation. This treaty and mutual framework helps further align and strengthen the growing relationship between Russia and the United States. We should all be encouraged that Russia's Duma has made no reservations about this treaty and is expected to approve it soon after the Senate approves it. The Moscow Treaty reduces the aggregate number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to a range of 1,700 to 2,200 by the end of 2012. This is a tremendous accomplishment that deserves the full support of the Senate and the Russian Duma. President Bush and Russian President Putin hold this as a high priority in getting this treaty ratified in a timely manner. This treaty was considered in a deliberative and thoughtful manner by the Senate. The Foreign Relations Committee worked in conjunction and cooperatively with the Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee. As well, the insights, reservations and recommendations on this issue were solicited and received by Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers. The Moscow Treaty is unlike any arms control agreement we have participated in with Russia or the former Soviet Union before. Previously, we spent decades with our counterparts in conferences and meetings to negotiate treaties. This agreement was concluded more quickly--with openness, trust, and verification prevailing in a new era of American and Russian relations. Traditionally, there have always been many objections to treaties such as these which limit our arms and possibly put the United States as risk. Now, we are hearing of some who have said this treaty is not strong enough. And there has been some legitimate debate about the verification system and reduction schedule which I and many of my colleagues share. But I do not believe these concerns rise to the level to oppose this treaty since it provides a mutual framework for pursuing the continued destruction of weapons and missiles whose sole purpose was to be used against the Untied States. This treaty is too important to oppose. It highlights and emphasizes the vitality of the new relationship between the United States and Russia. And with the ongoing war on terrorism, this is of utmost importance. Like the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I believe our storage procedures are sound and I am thankful for the flexibility within the treaty for our strategic systems. Yet I, like many others, do share some concerns on the Russian side. But these concerns are alleviated since the Treaty has avenues we can pursue which addresses these possible problems to ensure that weapons do not ever slip into the wrong hands. Also, I am thankful Russia is agreeable to work with the United States to ensure that these weapons never fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states. Also, one certainly must pay attention to, and demand, a solid verification system for these weapons. Some point out that the treaty has a flawed verification system that must be watched closely. But this criticism has not reached the level of doubt and worry to scrap the treaty. As well, those critics are operating under the guise of a cold war mentality. But things have changed in our relationship with Russia. Secretary Powell has been upfront on this issue in regards to the verification system in the Treaty. On behalf of the administration, he has clarified the need to keep the verification process the way it is within the treaty. The administration points to the fact that the cold war is over and we must move beyond that thought process. Also, Secretary Powell argues that we are better served with flexibility and not rigidity under the treaty. I believe the level of verification in this treaty is what is needed. We do know that our American verification experts already have the START Treaty verification procedures underway. These experts and procedures will be around for another decade. So, we do have dismantlement teams and equipment from the United States in Russia. These teams have been and will continue to cooperatively--with verification--dismantle these Russian weapons. Overall, I believe this treaty is in the national interest of the United States, the Russian Federation, and the world. Of course there are those critics who say this treaty does not go far enough, and some may say it goes too far. The purpose of this treaty is not to put an umbrella over all arms policy for all countries all at once. These objectives and goals can be made through piecemeal approaches, and this is exactly what this treaty does. We have a new ally with the Russian Federation, and we must move ahead to strengthen our relationship with this new ally and make this world a safer place. I urge my colleagues to support the Moscow Treaty without further conditions being set upon it. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today with several of my senate colleagues to introduce the Arming Cargo Pilots Against Terrorism Act. This bill closes a loophole to better protect the homeland against terrorists. As a result of the airplane hijackings on September 11, 2001, Congress took the appropriate action to prevent from ever happening again the use of an airliner as a missile and weapon of mass destruction and murder. Last year, large majorities of the Senate and House of Representatives voted to arm both cargo and passenger pilots who volunteered for a stringent training proram as part of the homeland security bill. Arming these pilots served to protect the pilots and aircrew, passengers and those on the ground from ever being victims of another airline hijacking. It was the right thing to do. However, during conference of the homeland security bill the cargo pilots were yanked from the bill. This bill we introduce today will arm cargo pilots and close the loophole created when they were left out last year. It is true that cargo airlines rarely have passengers, but that is no reason to disregard and ignore the safety of those cargo pilots and the aircrafts they control. Indeed, on occasions they do carry passengers, and sometimes they transport couriers and guards of some of the cargo being transported. Too many times these couriers and guards are armed while the pilots are unarmed. After September 11, that simply does not make sense. As well, physical security around too many of our air cargo facilities and terminals is not up to the standard it should be. This lax in security has allowed stowaways a free pass in climbing aboard cargo airplanes for a free ride. Just a few months ago a woman in Fargo, ND, rushed onto a United Parcel Service plane trying to get to California. Fortunately she was caught. I guarantee that many have successfully sneaked onto cargo airplanes. And many more will continue to try. This is further evidence as to why we need to act to allow these cargo pilots to defend themselves and the cockpit. Cargo pilots are not armed and they will never have Federal air marshals. Cargo planes do not have trained flight attendants or alert passengers to fend off hijackers. Cargo planes do not have reinforced cockpit doors, and some do not have any doors at all. Cargo areas of airports are not as secure as a passenger areas, and thousands of personnel have access to the aircraft. Finally, stowaways sometimes find their way aboard cargo aircraft. And in the future one might be a terrorist. There are no logical reasons to exclude cargo pilots. Simply saying that since they carry no passengers unlike a passenger airliner is not a good enough reason. Cargo planes are just as big as--if not bigger than--passenger planes. They can carry larger loads of fuel and frequently carry hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological products. A cargo airplane causes just as much damage when used as a weapon as did the passenger planes hijacked on September 11. We cannot allow what happened on September 11 to ever happen again. This loophole of excluding cargo pilots from being able to protect themselves and their aircraft and the public must be removed. This is the right thing to do, and I ask my Senate colleagues for their support. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2003. This is a simple bill that would repeal the income tax increase on Social Security benefits that went into effect in 1993. When the Social Security system was created, beneficiaries did not pay Federal income tax on their benefits. However, in 1983, Congress passed legislation that changed all this. The 1983 law requires that 50 percent of Social Security benefits be taxed for senior whose incomes reached a certain level. The revenue this tax generated was then credited to the Social Security trust funds. Although I wasn't in Congress back in 1983, some argued that these changes were necessary because it kept Social Security taxes more in line with taxes on private pensions and because it shored up the Social Security system. In 1993, President Clinton proposed that 85 percent of Social Security benefits be taxable for seniors meeting certain income thresholds, and that this additional money be allocated for the Medicare Program. Unfortunately, Congress passes this provision as part of a larger bill, which President Clinton then signed into law. I was a Member of the House of Representatives at this time. I voted against this bill and didn't support this provision. This tax is unfair to our senior citizens who worked year, after year, after year, paying into Social Security, only to be faced with higher taxed once they retired. The bill I am introducing would repeal the 85 percent tax, and would replace the funding that has been going to the Medicare Program with general funds. This tax was unfair when it was implemented in 1993, and it is unfair today. I hope my Senate colleagues can support this legislation to remove this burdensome tax on our seniors.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today with several of my senate colleagues to introduce the Arming Cargo Pilots Against Terrorism Act. This bill closes a loophole to better protect the homeland against terrorists. As a result of the airplane hijackings on September 11, 2001, Congress took the appropriate action to prevent from ever happening again the use of an airliner as a missile and weapon of mass destruction and murder. Last year, large majorities of the Senate and House of Representatives voted to arm both cargo and passenger pilots who volunteered for a stringent training proram as part of the homeland security bill. Arming these pilots served to protect the pilots and aircrew, passengers and those on the ground from ever being victims of another airline hijacking. It was the right thing to do. However, during conference of the homeland security bill the cargo pilots were yanked from the bill. This bill we introduce today will arm cargo pilots and close the loophole created when they were left out last year. It is true that cargo airlines rarely have passengers, but that is no reason to disregard and ignore the safety of those cargo pilots and the aircrafts they control. Indeed, on occasions they do carry passengers, and sometimes they transport couriers and guards of some of the cargo being transported. Too many times these couriers and guards are armed while the pilots are unarmed. After September 11, that simply does not make sense. As well, physical security around too many of our air cargo facilities and terminals is not up to the standard it should be. This lax in security has allowed stowaways a free pass in climbing aboard cargo airplanes for a free ride. Just a few months ago a woman in Fargo, ND, rushed onto a United Parcel Service plane trying to get to California. Fortunately she was caught. I guarantee that many have successfully sneaked onto cargo airplanes. And many more will continue to try. This is further evidence as to why we need to act to allow these cargo pilots to defend themselves and the cockpit. Cargo pilots are not armed and they will never have Federal air marshals. Cargo planes do not have trained flight attendants or alert passengers to fend off hijackers. Cargo planes do not have reinforced cockpit doors, and some do not have any doors at all. Cargo areas of airports are not as secure as a passenger areas, and thousands of personnel have access to the aircraft. Finally, stowaways sometimes find their way aboard cargo aircraft. And in the future one might be a terrorist. There are no logical reasons to exclude cargo pilots. Simply saying that since they carry no passengers unlike a passenger airliner is not a good enough reason. Cargo planes are just as big as--if not bigger than--passenger planes. They can carry larger loads of fuel and frequently carry hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological products. A cargo airplane causes just as much damage when used as a weapon as did the passenger planes hijacked on September 11. We cannot allow what happened on September 11 to ever happen again. This loophole of excluding cargo pilots from being able to protect themselves and their aircraft and the public must be removed. This is the right thing to do, and I ask my Senate colleagues for their support. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2003. This is a simple bill that would repeal the income tax increase on Social Security benefits that went into effect in 1993. When the Social Security system was created, beneficiaries did not pay Federal income tax on their benefits. However, in 1983, Congress passed legislation that changed all this. The 1983 law requires that 50 percent of Social Security benefits be taxed for senior whose incomes reached a certain level. The revenue this tax generated was then credited to the Social Security trust funds. Although I wasn't in Congress back in 1983, some argued that these changes were necessary because it kept Social Security taxes more in line with taxes on private pensions and because it shored up the Social Security system. In 1993, President Clinton proposed that 85 percent of Social Security benefits be taxable for seniors meeting certain income thresholds, and that this additional money be allocated for the Medicare Program. Unfortunately, Congress passes this provision as part of a larger bill, which President Clinton then signed into law. I was a Member of the House of Representatives at this time. I voted against this bill and didn't support this provision. This tax is unfair to our senior citizens who worked year, after year, after year, paying into Social Security, only to be faced with higher taxed once they retired. The bill I am introducing would repeal the 85 percent tax, and would replace the funding that has been going to the Medicare Program with general funds. This tax was unfair when it was implemented in 1993, and it is unfair today. I hope my Senate colleagues can support this legislation to remove this burdensome tax on our seniors.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have the privilege and honor today of recognizing Patrick S. LeRoy of Louisville, Kentucky. Earlier this month, Patrick was honored by the Muscular Dystrophy Association as the 2003 Kentucky State Goodwill Ambassador. Patrick is a special child with a special condition and unique opportunity to share his story with thousands of people. Each day he lives with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Symptoms of this disease include increasing muscle weakness in the body, concentrated mainly in the arms and legs. Nevertheless, Patrick does not allow this condition to limit his daily activities. In fact, this 8 year old is more active than most people his age, and even adults. Currently, Patrick is a second grader at Coral Ridge Elementary in Fairdale. When not studying his favorite subjects, math and science, this young man enjoys swimming, participating in karate class, and he also shares my passion for the game of baseball. In addition to his participation in athletics, Patrick also develops his artistic abilities through drawing. What sets Patrick apart from other children is not his health condition but his willingness to make a difference by speaking with people about muscular dystrophy, helping to remove a stigmatism that stems from lack of knowledge. Being selected as the Kentucky ambassador will give Patrick a valuable opportunity to encourage public support and education of this disease. Please join me in congratulating Patrick S. LeRoy and wishing him the best of luck in his new position of 2003 Kentucky State Goodwill Ambassador.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Operation Eagle's Nest. The Military Affairs Committees of Hopkinsville and Oak Grove, KY, and Clarksville, TN, created this fund-raising initiative to help the families of deployed soldiers from Fort Campbell. The communities surrounding Fort Campbell have a long tradition of supporting the more than 20,000 soldiers and their families of the 101st Airborne Division and the other units stationed at Fort Campbell. Troops from Fort Campbell have played a vital role in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world. As thousands of troops and tons of machinery and equipment depart Fort Campbell for the Middle East, it is important that Americans not forget the sacrifices of the families that the men and women of our Armed Forces leave behind. Local businesses and citizens in Kentucky and Tennessee founded Operation Eagle's Nest with the goal of raising at least $1 million as a contingency fund to be used as needed at the base. The local citizens are excited about the initiative and the opportunity to once again show our soldiers and their families how much they appreciate the sacrifices they make for our great Nation. The Fort Campbell soldiers deployed in the Middle East feel at ease with the confidence that their families are supported by local citizens. For Campbell Division Commander MG David Petraeus recently praised ``not just the monetary support but the symbolism of our communities coming together for the families.'' He is absolutely correct. The soldiers of Fort Campbell are heroically doing their part in the war on terror and the local citizens of Hopkinsville, Oak Grove, and Clarksville are graciously doing theirs. This is exactly what President Bush meant when he stated that all Americans must do their part in the war on terror.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government for taking extraordinary actions to protect and restore Kentucky rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands along with initiating innovative local pollution prevention programs. For their efforts, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Whitman recently presented the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government with the Clean Water Partner Award for the 21st Century at EPA headquarters in Washington, DC. In keeping with President George W. Bush's celebration of the Year of Clean Water, the EPA's Office of Water has recognized the best contributions by local agencies to protect watersheds and uphold the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The success of the Lexington- Fayette Urban County Government should not go unnoticed. Their accomplishment in developing the Reforest the Bluegrass program enables local citizen volunteers to make improvements to the environment. The program educates volunteers on the importance of riparian buffers in relation to storm water pollution, urban forests, and wildlife diversity. Mr. President, the men and women of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government have earned our admiration and respect for their hard work and determination. I am proud the Commonwealth of Kentucky is served so well by such dedicated public servants. Their example should be followed by others in order to further improve our water quality and environment.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in the Senate to pay tribute to the Johnson Central High School Academic Team. Recently, the members of this Academic Team won their fourth straight 15th Regional Governor's Cup. The Johnson Central Academic Team won the overall District 60 Governor's Cup Championship and went on to claim the Regional title. Along with winning the overall title, the team was awarded top honors in the Written Assessments section and the Future Problem Solving team also won first place. Also, the Quick Recall team defended their title by placing first 2 years in a row. Individual members also placed first in Mathematics, Language Arts and English Composition, and Science and Social Studies. The citizens of Paintsville, KY are fortunate to have the 15th Regional champ's living and learning in their community. Their example of hard work and determination should be followed by all in the Commonwealth. I congratulate the members of the Academic Team for their success. But also, I want to congratulate their peers, coaches, teachers, administrators, and parents for their support and sacrifices they've made to help the Academic Team meet those achievements and dreams.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Utah, I have read an editorial from the Riverside Press Enterprise in California which said in response to this fishing expedition on the confidential memoranda that the Democrats claim they want to review Mr. Estrada's legal views: One suspects that is not the role the Democrats have in mind for their memoranda. They probably hope to expose Mr. Estrada's conservative views, which no one doubts he holds, in hopes of defeating the nomination or at least scoring some political points. Does the Senator agree that is the reason they are doing what they are doing, trying to score political points?

Mr. BUNNING. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have the privilege and honor of rising today to recognize Mr. Albert W. Sisk of Hopkinsville, KY. Earlier this month, Mr. Sisk was honored as Kentucky's nominee for the 2003 TIME Magazine Quality Dealer Award at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention. Mr. Sisk is the president and dealer principle of Sisk Auto Mall located in Hopkinsville. One of the most distinguishing features of Mr. Sisk's business philosophy is his commitment to family. Mr. Sisk is a second-generation car dealer and he contributes his success to the knowledge he gained from working alongside his father, a torch he now passes to his son who is General Manager of Sisk Auto Mall. Mr. Sisk is certainly no stranger to community involvement. Aside from his current service in the private sector, Mr. Sisk once served his country as a member of the United States Army upon graduation from the University of Kentucky in 1965. Now he focuses his attention on helping young adults excel in academics and their future careers. He is an active member of the YMCA, Rotary Club, First Christian Church and the Elizabeth Stone Educational Fund Advisory Board. Business and personal honors aside, Mr. Sisk cites having the opportunity to work with his father the most rewarding aspect of his career. It is not often we have the chance to honor such a distinguished business man, community member, and family man. Please join me in congratulating Mr. Albert W. Sisk.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to our Nations's winningest college basketball program of all time, the University of Kentucky Wildcats. Earlier this month, on February 6, the UK Basketball Program celebrated its 100th anniversary. One century later, Kentucky basketball fans in our great Commonwealth and across the country have celebrated 7 National Championships, 41 Southeastern Conference Championships, 36 All-Americans, 5 Hall of Famers, and more than 1,835 victories. UK Basketball has more wins and more NCAA Tournament appearances than any other university in the Nation. Since 1927, the UK Basketball team has had only one losing season. To most UK Basketball fans, cheering for a Wildcat win in Rupp Arena is about much more than just basketball. The UK Basketball tradition is something all Kentuckians can be proud of. Over the past six years, Kentucky has led the Nation in average attendance even though some other schools with nationally-ranked teams have larger buildings. Many fans wait in lines for days in order to get the chance to see a game in legendary Rupp Arena. The women and men of Kentucky are proud of the tradition of Kentucky Basketball. I am proud to represent our great Commonwealth and especially the University of Kentucky as it celebrates its basketball program's 100th anniversary.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, the Social Security system is one of this country's most important programs. Millions of older and disabled Americans rely on their Social Security checks each month as a reliable source of income. We all know the long-term financial problems the Social Security system faces, and it is critical that Congress enact legislation to overhaul the system as soon as possible to ensure that our children and grandchildren can rely on a robust and healthy Social Security program. Today, I am introducing a bill, the Social Security Protection Act, that will immediately begin protecting the integrity and finances of the Social Security system by combating fraud and abuse. Fraud and abuse in the Social Security system not only threatens its long-term viability, but it also robs money from the millions of Americans who are contributing a portion of their hard-earned paychecks each month to the program. The Social Security Protection Act makes several common-sense and much-needed changes, including denying Social Security benefits to individuals who are fugitive felons and parole violators, creating new civil monetary penalties to combat fraud, and providing additional protections to Social Security employees while on the job. The bill also provides additional oversight of representative payees who are appointed by the Social Security Administration to manage the finances of beneficiaries who are unable to do so by themselves. Aside from additional oversight, the bill also imposes harsher penalties on representative payees who have misused their clients' funds, and even allows the Social Security Administration in certain circumstances to reissue misused funds to beneficiaries. Finally, the bill makes some changes to Social Security's attorney- fee withholding process, and expands it to Supplemental Security Income claims, as well. The bill also makes some other minor and non- controversial changes to Social Security law and the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. Last year, a similar version of this legislation came close to passing Congress. I hope that we can work in a bipartisan fashion with the House of Representatives to get this legislation passed so that our Social Security system can be better protected against fraud and abuse.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, the Social Security system is one of this country's most important programs. Millions of older and disabled Americans rely on their Social Security checks each month as a reliable source of income. We all know the long-term financial problems the Social Security system faces, and it is critical that Congress enact legislation to overhaul the system as soon as possible to ensure that our children and grandchildren can rely on a robust and healthy Social Security program. Today, I am introducing a bill, the Social Security Protection Act, that will immediately begin protecting the integrity and finances of the Social Security system by combating fraud and abuse. Fraud and abuse in the Social Security system not only threatens its long-term viability, but it also robs money from the millions of Americans who are contributing a portion of their hard-earned paychecks each month to the program. The Social Security Protection Act makes several common-sense and much-needed changes, including denying Social Security benefits to individuals who are fugitive felons and parole violators, creating new civil monetary penalties to combat fraud, and providing additional protections to Social Security employees while on the job. The bill also provides additional oversight of representative payees who are appointed by the Social Security Administration to manage the finances of beneficiaries who are unable to do so by themselves. Aside from additional oversight, the bill also imposes harsher penalties on representative payees who have misused their clients' funds, and even allows the Social Security Administration in certain circumstances to reissue misused funds to beneficiaries. Finally, the bill makes some changes to Social Security's attorney- fee withholding process, and expands it to Supplemental Security Income claims, as well. The bill also makes some other minor and non- controversial changes to Social Security law and the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. Last year, a similar version of this legislation came close to passing Congress. I hope that we can work in a bipartisan fashion with the House of Representatives to get this legislation passed so that our Social Security system can be better protected against fraud and abuse.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to one of Kentucky's finest educators. Pat Keller, a music teacher at Potter Gray Elementary School, was recently named Kentucky Elementary Music Teacher of the Year by the Kentucky Music Educators Association. Pat Keller has done more than teach her south central Kentucky students the concepts of music. Through Pat's 15 years as an educator, her efforts have instilled a sense of self-confidence that her students have benefitted from well beyond the classroom. Pat's students have gained the same respect and love for music that their teacher has and have also been given the self-assurance to contribute to the field of music. I am glad that Pat Keller chose to be a teacher in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and it is a source of great pride to call attention to her excellence. Her contributions have made all the difference in the lives of her students. The citizens from the Potter Gray Elementary School community are fortunate to call Pat Keller one of their own. They should be privileged to be served by such a fine educator. Her example should be followed by teachers across Kentucky.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senator Sam Brownback, the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act. Many Senators may not be aware of what I am talking about. I was not until recently, and I think it is important to raise awareness of the issue. Once my colleagues see what it is I am talking about, I am sure they will join in supporting my bill. The Internet sites we are talking about are disturbing and dangerous. I wanted to have some enlarged pictures to illustrate what I am talking about, but the images are indecent and would only be further exploiting these children. What I am talking about are websites with pictures and videos of children--mostly girls between the ages of 7 and 14, barely clothed and in revealing positions--being sold on the Internet. For $25 a month at one site, you can look at pictures of a sweet and tender child being turned into a prostitute. She hikes up her skirt and poses in a bikini on a bearskin rug. What is the point of this? It is not to sell a bearskin rug or an article of clothing or any other product. There is one thing being sold: A child as a sex object. But there's more to this site. For $50 you can purchase a video of this little girl dancing and running around in skimpy outfits that leave little to the imagination. Normal people do not visit these sites. The primary viewers of these Internet sites are grown men. Some are pedophiles. Some are even registered sex offenders. And what is more disturbing is that some of these children are put on display by their parents. It is absurd that a parent would do this to their own child for cash. Some parents even allow Internet viewers to interact with their children through e-mail. Some even make personal videos for subscribers and allow them to send in clothes for the girls to model. This is wrong. Any sane and logical person knows it is wrong. And that is why Congress should do something about it. I am not talking about children modeling clothes in a Sears catalog. I am not talking about kids advertising shoes or jackets. That is fine. And legitimate marketing of products is not illegal under my bill. This bill has been carefully crafted to protect legitimate modeling activities and to not trample on the First Amendment. Children are precious. I know firsthand because I have 9 of my own. I also have 35 grandchildren, and 3 great-grandchildren. And I don't want any of them--or any other children--growing up in a world where we exploit children in a sexual way. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and end exploitive child modeling. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senator Sam Brownback, the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act. Many Senators may not be aware of what I am talking about. I was not until recently, and I think it is important to raise awareness of the issue. Once my colleagues see what it is I am talking about, I am sure they will join in supporting my bill. The Internet sites we are talking about are disturbing and dangerous. I wanted to have some enlarged pictures to illustrate what I am talking about, but the images are indecent and would only be further exploiting these children. What I am talking about are websites with pictures and videos of children--mostly girls between the ages of 7 and 14, barely clothed and in revealing positions--being sold on the Internet. For $25 a month at one site, you can look at pictures of a sweet and tender child being turned into a prostitute. She hikes up her skirt and poses in a bikini on a bearskin rug. What is the point of this? It is not to sell a bearskin rug or an article of clothing or any other product. There is one thing being sold: A child as a sex object. But there's more to this site. For $50 you can purchase a video of this little girl dancing and running around in skimpy outfits that leave little to the imagination. Normal people do not visit these sites. The primary viewers of these Internet sites are grown men. Some are pedophiles. Some are even registered sex offenders. And what is more disturbing is that some of these children are put on display by their parents. It is absurd that a parent would do this to their own child for cash. Some parents even allow Internet viewers to interact with their children through e-mail. Some even make personal videos for subscribers and allow them to send in clothes for the girls to model. This is wrong. Any sane and logical person knows it is wrong. And that is why Congress should do something about it. I am not talking about children modeling clothes in a Sears catalog. I am not talking about kids advertising shoes or jackets. That is fine. And legitimate marketing of products is not illegal under my bill. This bill has been carefully crafted to protect legitimate modeling activities and to not trample on the First Amendment. Children are precious. I know firsthand because I have 9 of my own. I also have 35 grandchildren, and 3 great-grandchildren. And I don't want any of them--or any other children--growing up in a world where we exploit children in a sexual way. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and end exploitive child modeling. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleague, Senator Baucus, in the introduction of legislation to repeal the Special Occupational Tax on the sale of alcoholic beverages. This is an unfair tax imposed on all businesses that manufacture, distribute or sell alcohol products. It has a particularly egregious impact on the Nation's small businesses--the ``Mom and Pop'' convenience stores, the local bowling alleys, the small sandwich shop, the seasonal bait shop, and the community lodges. This regressive tax imposes the same tax on little businesses and large businesses. The tax is levied as a fixed amount per location--$250 for retailers, $500 for wholesalers, and $1,000 for vinters and distillers--with no adjustment for the size of a business. Thus, a family which owns two small convenience stores will pay twice as much as a large one-location ``super'' party store. This tax results in small retail outlets paying a larger percentage of their revenue towards this tax. In addition, the tax is not prorated, meaning that seasonal businesses such as bait shops or marinas that are open for three months a year will pay the same rate as businesses that are open year-around. Largely due to the negative impact of this tax on small businesses, there has been strong bi-partisan support for its repeal in both the Senate and the House. The effectiveness of the tax--which is traditionally quite expensive to administer--has been found to be flawed by the General Accounting Office in several examinations. In a 2001 study on the simplification of the Federal tax system, the Joint Committee on Taxation recommended the repeal of the Special Occupancy Tax on alcohol. The Joint Committee found that the tax is in the nature of a business license fee and serves no tax policy purpose. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Baucus and me in repealing this burdensome tax once and for all.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleague, Senator Baucus, in the introduction of legislation to repeal the Special Occupational Tax on the sale of alcoholic beverages. This is an unfair tax imposed on all businesses that manufacture, distribute or sell alcohol products. It has a particularly egregious impact on the Nation's small businesses--the ``Mom and Pop'' convenience stores, the local bowling alleys, the small sandwich shop, the seasonal bait shop, and the community lodges. This regressive tax imposes the same tax on little businesses and large businesses. The tax is levied as a fixed amount per location--$250 for retailers, $500 for wholesalers, and $1,000 for vinters and distillers--with no adjustment for the size of a business. Thus, a family which owns two small convenience stores will pay twice as much as a large one-location ``super'' party store. This tax results in small retail outlets paying a larger percentage of their revenue towards this tax. In addition, the tax is not prorated, meaning that seasonal businesses such as bait shops or marinas that are open for three months a year will pay the same rate as businesses that are open year-around. Largely due to the negative impact of this tax on small businesses, there has been strong bi-partisan support for its repeal in both the Senate and the House. The effectiveness of the tax--which is traditionally quite expensive to administer--has been found to be flawed by the General Accounting Office in several examinations. In a 2001 study on the simplification of the Federal tax system, the Joint Committee on Taxation recommended the repeal of the Special Occupancy Tax on alcohol. The Joint Committee found that the tax is in the nature of a business license fee and serves no tax policy purpose. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Baucus and me in repealing this burdensome tax once and for all.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to sit on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. As has been said many times in this Chamber, Mr. Estrada is highly qualified to sit on this court and deserves a fair hearing and a vote in the Senate. There are four vacancies on the DC Circuit's 12 seats. Most lawyers consider the DC Circuit to be the second most important court in the United States. That means the court is missing one-third of its judges. That is alarming. The seat for which Mr. Estrada has been nominated has been designated as a judicial emergency by the Judicial Conference of the United States. To leave the seat empty for any longer is unacceptable and dangerous. In Kentucky, we know a little bit about vacancies. We are part of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that panel has 6 vacancies right now out of 16 total seats. That is a little better from not too long ago when we had 8 openings, but it is not much better. In all, the U.S. Courts of Appeals have 25 vacancies, totaling 15 percent of the entire system. The situation is so bad the American Bar Association has described it as an emergency. Fortunately, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on four appellate court nominees recently, and one of those nominees is now before the Senate. At least we are starting to see some progress. Recently, Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered his annual report on the state of the Federal judiciary. One of the key points he emphasized was promptly filling vacancies. With this nomination, we have the opportunity to begin filling empty seats on the bench. Case filings in the Federal court system hit a new record high last year, and I believe that trend will continue this year also. The record number of cases in the court system, combined with judicial vacancies, led the Chief Justice to warn Congress that proper functioning of the court system is in jeopardy. The Senate cannot and must not allow that to happen. In concluding his remarks on judicial vacancies, the Chief Justice said: We simply ask that the President nominate qualified candidates with reasonable promptness and that the Senate act within a reasonable time to confirm or reject them. I cannot imagine a clearer signal to the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to confirm judges. President Bush has done his part in nominating candidates of the highest moral integrity and legal expertise. Each of his nominees has been carefully selected, and each deserves a hearing and a vote, which leads us to the nomination before us today. Mr. Estrada was nominated by President Bush in early 2001. Although he did get a hearing in the Judiciary Committee after well over a year, he was not granted a vote. It took almost 2 years for him just to get his day in court. In fact, when the 107th Congress ended last year, 31 nominees were still waiting in committee for a vote. We had not even had hearings in the Judiciary Committee. Twelve of the 14 pending nominees for the court of appeals were nominated in 2001, and six of them, including Miguel Estrada, were among the first group of nominees submitted to the Senate nearly 2 years ago. The judicial nomination situation in the Senate is totally unacceptable. Fifteen of President Bush's appellate nominees have had to wait more than a year for a hearing--not even a vote, just a hearing. According to the Justice Department, 15 of President Bush's appellate court nominees have had to wait over a year for a hearing. This is a higher total than the combined total that had to wait over a year for the past 50 years. Almost 90 percent of the appellate court nominees made in the first 2 years of the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton administrations were confirmed by the Senate. But in the first 2 years of this administration, only 54 percent were confirmed. Chief Justice Rehnquist is not exaggerating when he says the status of judicial nominations threatens the very function of our court system and justice itself. As for Mr. Estrada, he is a fitting nominee to break this logjam. Mr. Estrada is an inspiration. He has lived the American dream. He will become the first Hispanic to serve on that prestigious court. He is a fine example of the quality nominees President Bush has sent to the Senate. Mr. Estrada came to the United States when he was 17 years old, growing up in Honduras. He spoke little English when he arrived in America, but that did not keep him from graduating magna cum laude from Columbia College and Harvard Law School. He is no stranger to the appellate court system. After law school, he clerked for a judge at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. After that, he was a clerk for Justice Kennedy at the Supreme Court. Mr. Estrada then served as an assistant U.S. attorney in New York and a deputy chief of the appellate section of the U.S. Attorney's Office. Those jobs required him to try cases in the district courts and argue before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Next, he served in the Office of the Solicitor General during William Jefferson Clinton's administration. Now he is a partner in the Washington, DC, law firm of Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher. It has been said many times, but I think it is worth repeating, Mr. Estrada earned the American Bar Association's highest rating for a nominee, a ``unanimously well-qualified'' rating. He has been endorsed by a long list of political, business, and civil rights organizations. I have yet to hear any detractors make credible arguments that he is not qualified. I can see no obstacle to his being confirmed. He is supported by Seth Waxman, a Solicitor General under former President Clinton, as well as the former chief legal counsel to Vice President Gore. There is no question in my mind that Mr. Estrada will make a fine judge once confirmed. His life story is an inspiration for minorities, and all of us, throughout America. His hard work and dedication is obvious. His academic and legal achievements cannot be denied. I urge the Senate to quickly hold a vote on this nomination, and I urge my colleagues to support Miguel Estrada. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, February 4, 2003. Dear Colleague: I write to urge you to support the confirmation of Miguel A. Estrada, who has been nominated for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. If he is confirmed, he will be the first Hispanic to sit on this court, which is widely considered to be the second most important court in the country. Mr. Estrada represents an immigrant success story. Born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, his parents divorced when he was only four years old. Mr. Estrada remained in Honduras with his father while his sister immigrated to the United States with his mother. Years later, as a teenager, Mr. Estrada joined his mother in the United States. Although he had taken English classes during school in Honduras, he actually spoke very little English when he immigrated. He nevertheless taught himself the language well enough to earn a B- in his first college English course. In a matter of years, he not only perfected his English skills, but he exceeded the achievements of many persons for whom English is their native tongue. He graduated with a bachelor's degree magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1983 from Columbia College, then received a J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1986 from Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Mr. Estrada's professional career has been marked by one success after another. He clerked for Second Circuit Judge Amalya Kearse--a Carter appointee--then Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. He worked as an associate at Wachtell Lipton in New York--as high powered a law firm as they come. He then worked as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan, rising to become deputy chief of the appellate division. In recognition of his appellate skills, he was hired by the Department of Justice Solicitor General's Office in 1992. He stayed with that office for most of the Clinton Administration. When he left that office in 1997, he joined the Washington, D.C., office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where he has continued to excel as a partner. He has argued an impressive 15 cases before the United States Supreme Court, and the non-partisan American Bar Association has bestowed upon him its highest rating of Unanimously Well Qualified. I take the time to offer up this brief recitation of Mr. Estrada's personal and professional history because I think it illustrates that he is, in fact, far from the right-wing ideologue that some have portrayed him to be. He clerked for Judge Kearse, a Carter appointee, then Justice Kennedy, a moderate by any standard. He joined the Solicitor General's Office during the first Bush Administration, but stayed on through much of the Clinton Administration. His supporters include a host of well-respected Clinton Administration lawyers, including Ron Klain, former Vice President Gore's Chief of Staff; Robert Litt, head of the Criminal Division in the Reno Justice Department; Randolph Moss, former Assistant Attorney General; and Seth Waxman, former Solicitor General for President Clinton. He has defended pro bono convicted criminals, including a death row inmate whom he represented before the Supreme Court in an effort to overturn his death sentence. He has broad support from the Hispanic community, including the endorsement of the League of United Latin American Citizens (which is the country's oldest Hispanic civil rights organization), the Hispanic National Bar Association, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Business Roundtable, the Latino Coalition, and many others. Mr. Estrada has been unfairly criticized by some for declining to answer questions at his hearing about whether particular Supreme Court cases were correctly decided. Lloyd Cutler, who was White House counsel to both President Carter and President Clinton, put it best when he testified before a Judiciary Committee subcommittee in 2001. He said, ``Candidates should decline to reply when efforts are made to find out how they would decide a particular case.'' He further explained, ``What is most important is the appointment of judges who are learned in the law, who are conscientious in their work ethic, and who possess what lawyers describe as `judicial temperament.'' ' Mr. Estrada's academic achievement, his professional accomplishments, and the letters of bipartisan support we have received from his colleagues all indicate that Mr. Estrada fits this description. Several opponents of Mr. Estrada have attempted to block his confirmation by boldly demanding that the Department of Justice release internal memoranda he authored while he was an Assistant to the Solicitor General. All seven living former Solicitors General--four Democrats and three Republicans--oppose this request. Their letter to the Committee explains that the open exchange of ideas upon which they relied as Solicitors General ``simply cannot take place if attorneys have reasons to fear that their private recommendations are not private at all, but vulnerable to public disclosure.'' They concluded that ``any attempt to intrude into the Office's highly privileged deliberations would come at a cost of the Solicitor General's ability to defend vigorously the United states' litigation interests cost that also would be borne by Congress itself.'' The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have also criticized the attempts to obtain these memoranda. These misguided efforts should not prevent our confirmation of a well-qualified nominee who has pledged to be fair and impartial, and to uphold the law regardless of his personal convictions. I have no doubt that Mr. Estrada will be one of the most brilliant federal appellate judges of our time, and I urge you to join me in voting to confirm him. Sincerely, Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman.