Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in the Senate to honor and pay tribute to Kentucky State Police Trooper Craig Stalker for being named the Southern Region Trooper of the Year.

This honor was bestowed upon Trooper Stalker by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Trooper Stalker was nominated for this prestigious award after he rescued several people from two burning cars in Johnson County, KY, while off duty. After receiving this distinction he was presented with a 35-pound eagle trophy.

The citizens of eastern Kentucky are fortunate to have Trooper Stalker protecting their communities. His example of leadership, hard work, and compassion should be an inspiration to all throughout the Commonwealth.

Congratulations, Trooper Stalker for receiving this award. Trooper Stalker is just one of the many Kentucky State Police officers which put others before themselves by vowing to protect and serve Kentuckians. They have earned our admiration and respect, and for this we will always be grateful.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 3, the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act. It is totally unbelievable to me that Congress yet again is working on legislation to make partial-birth abortions illegal.

This is the fourth Congress in which the Senate will have considered this issue. In that time, innocent babies have been killed by this cruel and horrible practice. It is time to finally end it once and for all.

The Senate voted to ban partial-birth abortions in the 104th Congress, the 105th Congress, and the 106th Congress. The first two attempts to ban this gruesome act were sent to the White House and vetoed by President Bill Clinton.

In the last Congress, the House passed a partial-birth abortion ban. However, the Senate leadership refused to bring the issue up for consideration. I commend our leader, Senator Frist, for moving quickly to address this issue early in the 108th Congress, and I commend Senator Santorum for his lead in this effort. I am confident that the President at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue will act in defense of life by signing this proposal into law.

All forms of abortion are gruesome procedures, but I cannot imagine anything more hideous than partial-birth abortion. I will spare my colleagues a detailed description of this heinous procedure since it is so repulsive. We have already seen graphic pictures and illustrations outlining this infanticide. It is really hard to believe we have to go through this exercise every Congress because nobody, with a straight

face and a clear conscience, can stand up and defend this procedure.

The only way anyone can justify it is to say, hey, it doesn't matter because not that many partial-birth abortions are actually performed or they can try to cloud the issue by saying partial-birth abortions are only utilized in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. We know this just is not true. We know that some of the most ardent and visible defenders of abortion have actually lied about the numbers. It is not just a few hundred a year--it is in the thousands.

But the numbers really should not make any difference. If it is wrong and inhumane, we should ban it, whether it affects 1 or 1 million. But misleading facts about the numbers--trying to play down the prevalence and frequency of this procedure--are no justification for allowing this practice to continue.

This bill does not ignore the health needs of women. It clearly makes an exception when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. The plain language of this legislation clearly says that the ban on partial-birth abortions does not apply when such a procedure is considered necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. So even though many medical experts insist that there is never any medical justification for a partial- birth abortion, this bill goes the extra mile and permits it if the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Personally, I don't think this makes much sense, but it just goes to show that those of us who support the bill are doing what we can to try to find a middle ground and to answer concerns that some of our colleagues still have.

No one can deny that partial-birth abortion is cruel. No one can deny that it is patently inhumane. No one can deny that it is gruesome and grotesque. In fact, in the 8 years we have been debating this bill, no one has really come up with a defense of partial-birth abortions that holds any water.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, support this ban; it is simply a matter of respect for human life.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I speak in recognition of Dr. R. Brent Wright of Glasgow, Kentucky. Dr. Wright is a recipient of the American Medical Association's AMA Foundation Leadership Award at the 2003 AMA National Advocacy Conference held in Washington, D.C. earlier this month.

Each year the AMA takes an opportunity to honor young physicians who, in addition to offering patients quality medical attention, show a strong dedication to community affairs and leadership in the medical community. Only 25 young physicians in the nation receive this distinguished honor and I am proud that a fellow Kentuckian has been recognized for his innovative and hard work.

Dr. Wright serves as a family physician at the University of Louisville Health Science Center in Glasgow, Kentucky. No stranger to serving the needs of the community, he is Chair of the Community Medical Care Clinical Committee which offers assistance to uninsured and employed individuals. Dr. Wright is also active with medical associations, such as the AMA and the Kentucky Medical Association Congress of Delegates, and he serves as the Acting Program Director of the University of Louisville/Glasgow Family Medicine Residency Program.

His commitment to improving the health care system one patient at a time is certainly serving Kentucky well. I look forward to seeing the future accomplishments of his promising career, and I am pleased the Senate is joining me in honoring Dr. R. Brent Wright.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Fort Knox civilian employee Jeannie Bright. As a technical publications editor with Fort Knox's Directorate of Training, Doctrine, and Combat Development, Ms. Bright was recently named the Training and Doctrine Command's Editor of the Year. She will be honored at the Secretary of the Army Awards ceremony in the Pentagon on March 14.

Ms. Bright began her civilian career with the Army in 1974. Over the past 22 years, she has poured over millions of words in search of errors and in pursuit of accuracy in Army publications for

soldiers. She recently said, ``Sometimes it can be monotonous stuff, but if we're talking about nuclear, biological, and chemical gear and we go to war, then this is pretty important stuff.''

While the Army recognizes the dedicated efforts of Ms. Bright, her award should also serve to acknowledge the vital role that all civilian employees play in our Nation's defense. As we continue to keep our soldiers deployed all around the world in our thoughts and prayers, I rise to also thank the thousands of civilian employees like Ms. Bright who also serve our Nation.

I congratulate Ms. Bright on her tremendous service to the soldiers of Fort Knox, the entire Army and our great Nation. Thank you, Jeannie.

Mr. President, in the upcoming days of the 108th Congress, this legislative body may be called upon to tackle the very important and very difficult issue of Social Security reform. As it currently stands, the Social Security System needs strengthening for the sake of our children and grandchildren. I recently read an article, written by Mises Institute Scholar John Attarian, which takes us back to December 1981, when President Ronald Reagan, alone with House Speaker Tip O'Neill and Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, created a bipartisan commission to study Social Security and recommend reforms. Alan Greenspan was picked by President Reagan to head-up this commission. This article will provide my fellow colleagues with insightful information regarding past experience with Social Security reform. If we refuse to learn from our previous mistakes and mishaps, we are doomed to travel down the same erroneous and errant path. We can't just kick the can down the road. Raising taxes on benefits and reducing benefits are not an option for Social Security reform.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.