Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, can we have a copy of the amendment, please. We do not have a copy of the amendment.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. That is correct.

Mr. BUNNING. I was told I should come over because this amendment was going to be offered.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I voice my support for H.R. 1836, the tax relief bill. The American people deserve a tax cut. We have not given them a major, across-the-board tax cut since 1981. Twenty years is too long to wait. Americans are overtaxed. Personal tax payments have risen on average by 10.5 percent per year over the last five years, but, personal income has risen by only 5.9 percent per year. The tax burden as a percentage of GDP is the highest it has been since World War Two. This is absolutely ridiculous, especially when you consider our budget surpluses. This money belongs to the people and should be returned to them. If we don't, it's just going to get frittered away here in Washington. President Bush is correct. No American should pay more than a third of their income in Federal taxes. This bill does not take us all the way there, but it is a step in the right direction. This bill will also help eliminate the unfair marriage penalty. We have penalized families for far too long. I have never understood why the Federal government, through the tax code, would penalize people for getting married. We should be encouraging marriage, not creating disincentives for marriage. This bill will provide a deduction up to $3,000 for two-earned families who file jointly. In Kentucky, that is real money. The bill will also help families by doubling the child tax credit. This will be a welcome addition to families and ease their burden just a little bit. As the grandfather of 35, I know this will help my nine children. I also strongly support the estate tax relief this bill is providing. For far too long, the children of American farmers and small business owners have labored under the burden of knowing that death could force them to sell their assets to satisfy the IRS. It is way past time to correct this. There is no good reason to tax individuals at death or to make this sad time a taxable event. But we need a tax cut not just for of fairness reasons, but also for economic reasons. We need tax relief to stimulate our economy. As my colleagues know, unemployment has been increasing, and economic growth has been slipping. The Federal reserve, through way too late in my opinion, has been using monetary policy to help stimulate the economy. But monetary policy itself is not the answer. We need a strong fiscal policy solution as well. We need an immediate decrease in withholding taxes to put more money in the pockets of consumers. We can do much better and the stimulus effect will be much more pronounced by putting more money in the hands of Americans immediately. We need to get people to start buying again. We need to give tax relief to our nation's small businesses so they can start reinvesting again. This bill will bring much needed relief to small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. Small businesses create jobs. We need to help them innovate by relieving their tax burdens. In a perfect world this is not the bill I would have written. I believe that we can give more relief to our small businesses. I think the rates need to be cut more. And I'd like to see faster death tax and marriage penalty relief. There are some provisions in this bill which, while they have great merit, are not the priorities I would have chosen. But, obviously, this is not a perfect world. I believe that chairman Grassley and the Finance Committee have done an outstanding job under very difficult circumstances. I think it says a lot about chairman Grassley and the committee as a whole that they were able to move such a major piece of legislation, so quickly, in such a bipartisan fashion. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support this tax relief bill. It is not perfect, but it will bring much needed relief to all Americans who pay income taxes, and even some who don't. It will also help stimulate our economy, and help bring us out of this economic funk we are in. Time time for tax relief has long passed. Please support our President and vote for H.R. 1836. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING. On the bill itself, not the amendment.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I object.

Mr. BUNNING

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

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to take my 20 minutes now and concede to the opponents or the opposition 20 minutes following my 20 minutes.

Mr. BUNNING. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise today to talk for a few minutes in support of S. 1, the President's education reform bill. We all agree that every child should receive a top-notch education, and that no child should be left behind. There isn't one Senator who disagrees with that. But we can disagree on the best ways to meet this goal, and that's what much of the debate is going to be about. I believe that the bill before us today deserves our support for a number of reasons. And it ensures that no child left behind is more than a campaign slogan--it's a promise to our families and their children. First, the legislation makes badly needed changes to the Department of Education--changes that will help us do a better job at educating our kids. In the past we've relied too much on creating new programs and the failed notion that spending more and more money, and that creating more and more government, are answers to the question of how to best educate our kids. If that were true, Federal welfare spending would have ended poverty years ago. And Federal education spending would have ensured that every child could read and write. That hasn't happened because money isn't the answer. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about spending more money as if it were a magic pill that will fix all of our problems. This just isn't true. Look at the schools in the District of Columbia. Per student spending there is among the highest in the land, and the school system has been in terrible shape for years. More money and more programs aren't the answer. It might sound good. It might make some of us feel better. But it's a false promise that cheats our kids. And I would like to remind my friends on the other side who are now questioning our commitment to kids that the last time Congress worked on reauthorizing the ESEA back in 1994 that they didn't say one word about linking the bill to appropriations--not one word. So all of their complaining now rings a little bit hollow. You can't prove your commitment to children, your commitment to education just by tossing around dollar figures. Talk is always cheap. There is a difference between just spending more money and spending it wisely. This bill recognizes that difference. For instance, today there are 58 programs funded through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act alone, and we are going to spend approximately $18 billion on these programs this year alone. The bill before us simply doesn't just tack more programs onto current law and increase spending as part of a hollow promise to improve education. That would be a cheap out, an easy way to make us all feel better. Instead, this legislation makes more fundamental and significant changes. It folds many of these programs into more constructive approaches, and repeals others that don't work. That does not happen often in Washington--getting rid of a program that doesn't work. But this bill does it. And I think it's going to make a difference for the kids. And by folding programs and some spending into block grants, we put more power in the hands of the local officials and teachers who are on the front lines and have the most experience with what methods really work. Another good aspect in this bill is that it requires results and instead of just tossing funding at a problem, it injects serious accountability into education. By testing students annually from grades three to eight, we make sure they are actually learning and not simply getting passed along to become someone else's problem. And it holds teachers and school boards accountable for these results. If scores don't improve, the kids can leave those failing schools and funding will follow them to institutions that work and teach. Schools that fail to educate their students will face the consequences. Parents will be notified and students will be allowed to transfer to other public schools. If the problems continue, the school could be forced to implement a new curriculum, the school's staff could be replaced, or the school could be reopened as a charter school. This legislation contains other promising initiatives, including the Reading First Program that makes sure all children read by the end of third grade. Instead of social promotion, we are actually going to make sure that kids master the most fundamental skill of all--reading. And there is an Early Reading First program that focuses on reading for children ages 3 to 5. I realize that this sort of testing and accountability is a change from the past for many and makes a lot of folks nervous. However, there are times when change is necessary. And this is one of those times. We should not be happy with the status quo when it comes to educating our children, and should always be looking for better ways to educate. If something doesn't work, you change it. Fear of improvement or a fresh approach is no reason to continue to shortchange our kids. By requiring the States to test children, this bill maintains another crucial aspect of our educational system--local control. Some of my colleagues might remember last year when President Clinton took a tour around the country to promote one of his education proposals. Some of the Washington bureaucrats put together a map of his tour that included a stop in Owensboro, KY. Of course the map and the PR material they put out about the President's trip to Owensboro showed it being in the middle of Tennessee, and actually lopped off the western part of Kentucky and gave it to Illinois. That is just a funny little mistake, but it demonstrates my point that Washington does not know best. I definitely trust folks in western Kentucky--who know where Owensboro really is--to educate our Kentucky kids than officials who work here at the Department of Education. I already talked a little but about block grants and about how they'll work. I'm also glad that the legislation strengthens the successful ED-Flex Program and I hope it eventually includes the important straight A's Program. Those are crucial parts of this bill that guarantee local control and the best possible results. Under the President's plan, States test kids in grades 3-8 in reading and math, States are responsible for creating the tests as well as setting performance goals and creating a plan for ensuring that all of their students are proficient on their statewide tests within 10 years. Additionally, States will also administer a national test, called the National Assessment of Educational Progress in grades 4 and 8, to make sure all students across the country are not being cheated out of a good, positive education. By protecting the role of State boards of education, we help ensure that local communities can play their traditional role in instructing our children. And just to make sure that the work gets done, the Federal Government will foot the bill for these testing procedures by paying for half of the cost of the statewide tests, and the full cost of the national assessment test. Local education agencies will be held to the same standards of improving student achievement, and will face similar consequences if they fail. Just as students have to pay a penalty if they fail, so should teachers and schools if they fail in their responsibilities. Education is a serious business. There should be real consequences for failing our kids. We trust schools and educators with our kids' futures, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be called to task for the results. Personally, I think that one of the most effective parts in this bill is the provision that gives children the power to change schools if their school fails them. To sum it up, in this legislation the money follows the kids. If a child escapes a failing school, the money used to help educate them follows them to an institution that works. I support completely the choice of schools for children. I think it is the best way to give schools an incentive to do a good job. Competition is the way to ensure the best results when it comes to markets and practically every other part of our society. But for some reason, when it comes to education and our kids the opponents of choice say no. I don't know why the opponents of choice think that it won't work for kids and schools. I believe that this cheats our neediest students and takes power away from them. I look forward to this part of the debate. But even if we don't succeed in giving complete freedom of choice to students, the fact that this bill gives students in public institutions the power to change their schools is a dramatic improvement over the status quo. In conclusion, I urge support for the bill. The legislation before us presents an important choice to us: Do we continue with the status quo, or do we take an important step in improving education for children, and ensuring a bright future for them? Do we listen to those who sing the tired old songs about more money and more money, or do we opt for real reform and accountability? I, for one, will vote to improve education and for a fresh start for our kids. I urge support for this legislation before us today. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, for a week now we have been debating campaign finance reform. It has been a healthy debate, and a debate I am glad we are having. Some want dramatic changes by overhauling the whole system. Others want simple reforms around the edges. Some want to limit soft money. Some want to ban it. Some want full disclosure. Others want none. Some want to raise the ceiling on hard money given by individuals. Others want to leave hard money limits alone. Some want to protect paychecks of union members from having their dues used for political activities. Some do not want to ensure that protection at all. But let's all agree on one thing. We all think our present campaign finance system needs reforming. However, the underlying McCain-Feingold bill, S. 27, is an attack on the rights of average citizens to participate in the democratic process. Attacking these rights only enhances the power of wealthy individuals, millionaire candidates, and large news corporations. McCain-Feingold hurts the average citizen's participation in the process because it targets and imposes restrictions on two key citizen groups: issue advocacy groups and political parties. These two groups serve as the only effective way through which average citizens across America can pool their $10, $20, $100 donations to express themselves effectively. One individual alone in the public arena can accomplish little with his or her small donation. But the small donations of thousands of like-minded individuals can accomplish a lot when they work together. The right to associate is fundamental in our democratic Republic, and the ability of the average citizen across America to effect public policy is very important. It is so important that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized it as a fundamental right with constitutional protections. If McCain-Feingold succeeds as it is now, the influence of average citizens would be drastically reduced. Associations with like- minded individuals is essential to engaging in the debate of public policy, but under McCain-Feingold the average citizen would be buried in the tomb of nonparticipation and the rich and powerful would run politics. Under McCain-Feingold, the power of the giant news media corporations is not eliminated. Their editorial content and news coverage are protected by the first amendment. And the wealthy multimillionaires will not be prohibited from spending their money to self-finance their campaigns or express their views on public policy issues. The media and the wealthy have all the power and money they need to pay for communications about issues. Therefore, the campaign finance reform as proposed by McCain-Feingold strips power from the average citizen and allows the wealthy and powerful to retain their influence. Although well intended by the bill's sponsors, the underlying bill does not present us with a clear and level playing field for all Americans. There are winners and there are losers. The losers are the citizens of average means, citizens' groups, advocacy organizations, labor unions, and political parties. The winners are the wealthy, major news corporations, and incumbent politicians. Think about who supports this bill. The wealthiest of America's foundations and individuals are supporting this bill. The mainstream media is the prime cheerleader of this bill, and many incumbent politicians are attracted to this bill. The majority of average citizens e-mailing my office, calling me and writing me, overwhelmingly oppose this bill. To try to level the playing field in elections with superwealthy candidates, I cosponsored an amendment with Senators Domenici and DeWine and others. That amendment, known as the wealthy candidate amendment, would have allowed a candidate running against a wealthy candidate who self-financed his or her campaign to increase the contribution limits from individuals and PACs. This amendment, thankfully, passed. It is a great improvement to the base bill and helps to level the playing field and take advantage away from the superwealthy candidate who sometimes pours tens of millions of dollars into their own campaign to win a House or Senate seat. This amendment helps those candidates who are not millionaires, or wealthy, to have the limits raised on what they can accept from individuals and PACs. I think it is a commonsense and bipartisan reform provision, and that it will do much to create freer elections and confidence of the public in those elections where the superwealthy spend millions and millions of dollars. There are other campaign reform measures that should be enacted as well to enhance and not stifle the voice of citizens. The hard dollar individual contributions have not been raised since 1974. This limit needs to be raised and indexed for inflation. One thousand dollars just does not buy what it used to in 1974. This limit must be raised substantially, especially if soft money to the parties is going to be reduced. The limit should be raised to $3,000 from the current $1,000. Raising this limit would enable more individual citizens to run for office, enable all candidates to concentrate more on the job at hand and less on fundraising. It may also remove some of the incentive for interest groups to make independent and issue advocacy expenditures. While a $1,000 contribution may have been high in 1974 when it was imposed, it would be worth about $3,000 today. In addition, the aggregate hard money individual contribution limit should be raised higher than it is already in the bill. McCain-Feingold raises current law from a $25,000 limit to $30,000, but, like the hard dollar limits for individuals, this limit should be raised higher and indexed for inflation. The Hagel-Landrieu bill raises this amount from $25,000 in current law to $75,000. I would feel much better about supporting a measure which raises these two amounts to strengthen the voice of the individual citizen. Finally, the heart of campaign finance reform must be disclosure. We have seen in recent years TV blitzes and ad wars in campaigns. Many people wonder who puts out these ads and commercials, and how much money is spent on ad blitzes, and who in the world is paying for them. For American citizens to make a better informed decision in their voting, they deserve to know who is sponsoring these ads and especially who is paying for them and how much they cost. We have the ability to make this information available over the Internet instantly. The Federal Election Commission can and should make this information available on the Internet as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours after the information is received by the FEC. Full disclosure will instill better confidence in our citizenry. This provision is something many of us have advocated in the past, and it is part of the Hagel-Landrieu proposal, which I hope becomes part of this underlying bill. We have spent a week on campaign finance reform, and we have another week to go. I hope we can make some real effort and progress in strengthening the voice of the average citizen. I fear that so far we still have an unequal playing field, and that the underlying bill still favors the wealthy incumbents and the media. We need to enhance, not squelch, the voice of the people in their elections. Free political speech is the best campaign finance reform. It is the very core of what James Madison drafted and the Framers adopted when they guaranteed to the people that ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' If we are going to pass campaign finance reform, then we need to ensure that average citizens are not absolutely out of the system. We must pass a bill that does not restrict the freedom of speech of any American. I urge my colleagues to make sure that happens when we pass this bill. If it doesn't have those features in it, I suggest that we vote against McCain-Feingold. If it has those features, then I suggest that we vote for the underlying bill. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 6, the resolution to disapprove the Department of Labor's regulations on ergonomics standards. This isn't a new issue. Congress wrestled with ergonomics regulations for a decade. This isn't the solution we need. We can and must do better. Right off the bat, let's remember we all want a safe workplace for the American workers. That is just common sense. The debate today isn't about who is for or against workers or who is for or against a safe place to work. It is, instead, about the most effective way to achieve the goal of workers, employers, and our entire economy. The Department of Labor regulation that we are voting on today has a number of problems. It is too regulatory, too burdensome on business, and it is not backed up by sound science. It needs an overhaul. We need to pass this resolution today to make sure that if and when the Federal Government passes a final ergonomics rule, it gets it right. For years, Congress and the Department of Labor have been talking about writing an ergonomics rule. This is nothing new. All of my colleagues are familiar by now with this issue. But these regulations that are about to go into effect are the product of a hurried, sloppy rulemaking process. After years and years of debate and study, it was rushed through at the 11th hour by President Clinton, just before he left office. I know everybody has seen this, but it is 608 pages--608 pages. It is not even the same rules and regulations that were originally proposed. We need to know that President Clinton was busy as a beaver before he left the White House, working right up to the last minute trying to pass as many new big Government regulations and to pardon as many fugitives as possible. The ergonomics regulations are just another example of the frenzied last-minute push by the President to build a legacy. It is not about getting the best workplace safety rules; it is about President Clinton trying to pass as many new rules as possible before he had to leave town. That is not the right way to write regulations, and Congress has the oversight responsibility to do the right thing and take a hard, cold look at what he did. What the President did just does not make sense. After years of discussing and debating, the worst thing he could have done was to finally pass a new rule just for the sake of doing it. The Small Business Administration estimates that the ergonomics rule is going to cost American businesses $60 billion to $100 billion a year. That is too much money not to make sure that every ``i'' is dotted and every ``t'' is crossed. It is hard to pass a law and it is hard to pass a rule. Congress has set up that procedure on purpose to make sure things are done thoroughly and thoughtfully and sensibly, and new regulations that could have a tremendous impact on employers and employees are not slapped together at the last minute. But that is exactly what happened with the ergonomics rule, and the results could be disastrous for our economy. Besides the sloppy process, one of the biggest problems with this mad rush to pass a rule was that it ignored sound science. OSHA and Congress have been working on an ergonomic standard for the better part of a decade, and in 1998 we asked the experts at the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences to study the medical and scientific evidence to help determine what, if any, regulations were needed. They finished that study in January and determined that more detailed research was needed before we write a final rule. Among other things, the Academy said many factors such as age, gender, personal habits, or even job satisfaction could all play a part in workplace injuries, and that we have to be careful to take everything into account in writing an ergonomics rule. One size does not fit all. That is probably another reason why President Clinton was in such a hurry to pass the ergonomics rule last November. The new study was going to come out soon and he was worried about what it was going to say. So instead of waiting for all the evidence, instead of waiting for the experts, he tried to jam the ergonomics regulations down the throat of American business before all the facts came to light. That is no way to run a Government or a railroad. But the biggest concern I personally have with the new regulations is not about process, and it is not about science. It is about what the new rules would mean in terms of dollars and cents out in the real world. Before we do anything else, we have to be realistic and take a hard look at the bottom line and how this rule is going to hurt our economy; how it could close businesses and lead to layoffs of real people. As I just said a few minutes ago, the SBA has already told us these new regulations could cost up to $100 billion every single year. According to the Employment Policy Foundation, businesses in Kentucky could expect to pay $1.3 billion annually. In my part of Kentucky, that is serious money. For a business that operates on the margin, where the owners and workers struggle every day to keep the doors open and the lights on, this sweeping new regulation could be the difference between life and death--staying open or closing. Over the years, I have heard many of my constituents speak about this issue, and many are afraid these new regulations could lead to layoffs or increased prices for products or to jobs moving overseas. That is simply not acceptable. I recently received a letter from Joe Natcher, who is President and CEO of Southern Foods in Bowling Green, KY. Southern Foods is a small business that sells food, cleaning supplies, and other products to area businesses. He told me about these regulations and how they could affect his company. Mr. Natcher wrote: As we begin our compliance efforts, it is clear that the rule will severely impact productivity and profitability, putting jobs at risk and increasing prices to our consumers without providing any additional health and safety benefits. Southern Foods does not just talk about safety and health habits. We practice it every day. Additionally, we provide training to all co-workers and have an active safety committee. . . . The ergonomics rule threatens our company's future and the jobs of the co-workers who depend on us. Southern Foods is just one example from the thousands of Kentucky businesses that would be affected by these new regulations. As they are written now, the new regs would affect almost every single employer in America, even if they had just one employee. No matter what their situation, businesses will be forced to implement a complete ergonomics program if there is only one complaint. The cost and effort could be staggering. It is simple. More burdensome rules and regulations mean more time spent on paperwork and less time on business. Less work on business means less gets done, the bottom line shrinks. We know who is going to pay--workers, in lower wages, fewer benefits, and layoffs. I know many in the labor movement really want the new regulations, but I am afraid they are looking at the regulation rules in a vacuum. They might think this sweeping new rule is the answer to their prayers, but in the end it is just going to hurt those they claim they want to protect. Finally, let me say if this resolution passes, it is not the end of the discussion about ergonomics and improving the safety of the American workplace. Instead, it leaves the door open for the Bush administration to continue studying this issue and to come up with more practical and creative ways to accommodate workers and employees. Any new regulations have to be something with which we all literally can live. The pending regulations we have now are not. I urge support for the resolution before us today and I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, before I am recognized under the time allotted under the previous order, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, Senator Allard be recognized for up to 15 minutes following the remarks of Senator Reed of Rhode Island and that Senator Thomas be recognized for up to 15 minutes following the remarks of Senator Harkin.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of John Ashcroft to be our next U.S. Attorney General. For weeks now, the media, Members of this body, and the liberal left have conducted nothing more than a smear campaign against John Ashcroft. For the past 2 years in the 106th Congress, I served with John Ashcroft as a deputy whip, and I came to know him very well. He is one of the most intelligent, fair, and compassionate men I have ever known. He is thoughtful and full of integrity and humility. He is going to make a fine Attorney General. What is being done to John Ashcroft and his reputation is wrong and despicable. Today I want to help set things straight about John Ashcroft, and to separate the facts from the lies and distortions that are being carelessly tossed around about him and his record. First of all, John Ashcroft is one of the most qualified nominees ever to be named to be Attorney General. He was twice elected to be Missouri's attorney general. He was twice elected to be Missouri's Governor. And the people of Missouri elected him in 1994 to be one of their U.S. Senators. None of our previous Attorneys General has had such broad popular support from the people who knew them best. In each of these posts, John Ashcroft served with distinction, being honored by his peers with leadership positions. As Missouri's attorney general, John Ashcroft was elected president of the National Association of Attorneys General. In other words, the other 49 elected him to lead their group. As Missouri's Governor, he was elected chairman of the National Governors' Association. The same thing: 49 others elected him to lead the Governors' organization. Now many of the liberal special interests groups are trying to tar and feather him by attacking his long and distinguished record of public service. But facts are stubborn things, and the facts prove them wrong. The liberals claim that John's views are out of the mainstream. Some are even resorting to name-calling and calling him a racist and an extremist. It is hard to see how he could be such a demon and still be five times elected to statewide office. If John Ashcroft's execution of these earlier public trusts was as far ``out of the mainstream'' as his critics now claim, the people of Missouri would have ridden him out of town on a rail. His peers surely would not have honored him for his achievements. The fact of the matter is that John Ashcroft's views are in line with those of most Missourians and most Americans. If his ideas and beliefs are so far out of the mainstream, are John Ashcroft's critics really saying that the majority of citizens in Missouri who elected him to these posts are extremists? Are his critics ready to make this claim? I doubt it. The rhetoric we have heard from these critics serves nothing more than to fatten up the fundraising of the left and to scare people into voting for liberals by continuing to try and label conservatives as mean-spirited. We saw it with Robert Bork. We saw it with Clarence Thomas. Now we are seeing it with John Ashcroft. It is just hot air, and I believe that the American people are going to reject these tactics and the politics of personal destruction. Another one of the lies that is being told about John Ashcroft is that he is a racist. His critics point to his opposition to Missouri Judge Ronnie White for a position as a Federal judge as proof. But, again, let's ignore the rhetoric and look at the facts. When he was Governor, John Ashcroft appointed the first black judge to one of Missouri's appellate courts. As a Senator, John Ashcroft voted to confirm 26 black judges out of 28 nominated to the Federal bench. He led the fight to save Lincoln University which was founded by black soldiers. His wife, Janet, even teaches as a law professor at Howard University, one of our leading historically black colleges. For his critics to now turn around and call John a racist is absurd and nothing more than dirty politics. When they're not calling John Ashcroft a racist, the liberals sneer that he can't be trusted to enforce the law. They don't have any real proof, just a lot of strong words. They say that John isn't fair-minded enough to enforce laws he might not agree with. But John did a fine job enforcing Missouri's laws when he was attorney general there. And I believe that after he lays his hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the Constitution as our 68th Attorney General that he will do a fine job for our Nation. Eight years ago when Janet Reno was nominated to be Attorney General, no one made the ridiculous charge that she wouldn't uphold laws she might not agree with. No one can or should make the same claim about John Ashcroft. John Ashcroft will enforce the law. He is a man of his word. He has an impeccable record of law enforcement. I know and I fully trust him to do the job which he will be sworn to do. Let's face it. The real problem the critics on the left have is John Ashcroft's stance on the issues and his conservative philosophy. But they know they can't use this as a real reason to defeat his nomination, so they resort to calling him names and throwing mud at him, hoping that some will stick. They drag out the process as long as possible and dig around in the dirt for any scraps they can find. They smear his good name. They make up bogus charges. They even sink as low as to question his religious beliefs. It is very sad, but it won't work. The job of Attorney General is not to advocate policy. It is to enforce our laws. The question we have to ask about John Ashcroft is, will he enforce those laws? His record says he will. He has repeatedly said he will. There is no evidence to say otherwise, just false charges and name-calling. John Ashcroft is going to be confirmed, and I believe his critics and the tactics they take will backfire. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for John Ashcroft. We could not ask for a more qualified and fair-minded person for the job. John will make us all very proud. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Yes, we do.

Mr. BUNNING. Yes, we do.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding Kentuckian, Lt. Bob Douglas (ret). For almost 30 years, Bob has crusaded against the scourge of drugs and served the people of Kentucky, helping to make the Commonwealth a safer place to live. Bob worked for 25 years as a member of the Erlanger, Kentucky Police Department. For the last nine of those years, he was the primary instructor for the anti-drug program, D.A.R.E. When Bob retired from the police force in 1998, he became the Executive Director of the Kentucky Crime Prevention Coalition. He is also a new member of the steering committee of the National Crime Prevention Council. For his efforts, Bob was recently presented with a 2000 Mac Gray Award for his outstanding effort to promote the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign. The award recognizes those who have made extraordinary contributions and pledged personal commitment to work with the media to promote anti-drug public service announcements and crime prevention education. Some have kidded Bob about the Columbo-style overcoat he wears. But like Peter Falk's character, Bob gets results. For years, he visited children in schools to teach them about the dangers of drugs and to urge them to stay out of trouble. With his partner, the canine character, Officer McGruff, there is no doubt that Bob made an impression and steered more than a few children in the right direction. Too often we hear about our problems and the trouble-makers in society, and we don't hear enough about our heroes and the everyday citizens who make a difference and improve our quality of life. Bob Douglas is one of those heroes, and he deserves our commendation. I ask that an article on Lt. Douglas be printed in the Record. The article follows: Douglas Takes Bite Out of Award (By Juli Hale) With his Columbo-style overcoat, some might think Bob Douglas' long-time partner needs to call the fashion police. But one look at the partner's big brown eyes and black, wet nose is usually all it takes to draw in a crowd of kids to listen to the pair's message of drug resistance and crime prevention. Douglas and Officer McGruff, the tough-talking cartoon canine, spent years visiting school classrooms trying to turn at least one student away from a life of drug abuse and crime, Douglas and others believe they did much more. Today, the pair appears at community events and keeps spreading the message. For his efforts in drug and crime prevention and for sharing the spotlight with McGruff, Douglas was presented with a 2000 Mac Gray Award last week in Washington. The Mac Gray Award honors outstanding efforts to promote the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign. It memorializes Berkeley McCabe ``Mac'' Gray II, the late executive deputy director of the National Crime Prevention Council. The award was one of only two presented in the nation this year to officers who use McGruff as part of their message. The award recognizes two winners each year--one at the national/state level and one at the local/regional level--who have made extraordinary contributions and personal commitments to work with the media to secure donated advertising for public service announcements as well as promoting McGruff and crime prevention education. Douglas won for the national/state level. ``I personally see this as an Erlanger award and I wanted to share it with you,'' Douglas said to City Council Tuesday night after showing a short video presentation about the award. Obviously touched by the video, which showed Douglas working with students over the years, Douglas held the glass award high for everyone to see. The video also highlighted Douglas' other achievements, such as his having McGruff's image painted on the side of a new police cruiser and pushing for the McGruff message ``take a bite out of crime'' to be placed on billboards. Douglas worked for the Erlanger Police Department for 25 years, the last nine as the primary DARE instructor. Douglas retired in 1998 and became executive director of the Kentucky Crime Prevention Coalition, which also used McGruff-related material. He was awarded the title of Kentucky DARE Officer of the Year in 1997. ``You never cease to amaze me,'' Mayor Marc Otto told Douglas. ``Keep up the good work.'' Douglas will continue his work both as the executive director of the Crime Prevention Coalition and as a new member of the steering committee of the National Crime Prevention Council. Douglas was asked to join that committee last week.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today, October 10th, is the 89th observance of National Day in the Republic of China on Taiwan. From its early days of struggle on the Chinese mainland to the establishment of the vigorous democracy and free market economy that we know today on Taiwan, the Republic of China has made great strides since its founding on October 10, 1911. The vision of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the founding father of the Republic of China, was expressed in what he called the ``Three Principles of the People''--nationalism, democracy, and the people's well being. We all hope that Dr. Sun's vision, which has been realized so impressively on Taiwan, will some day be equally as true on the Chinese mainland. Taiwan held its most recent parliamentary election in December 1998 and, of course, conducted its most recent presidential election just this past March. The election of Chen Shui-bian as president marked Taiwan's first transition of power from one party to another at the national level. Even more important, it marked the first time in the 5,000-year-long history of Chinese society that one democratically- elected head of state was succeeded by another. In the economic and social fields, Taiwan's success is well known. The 22 million people of Taiwan are responsible for the 19th largest gross national product in the world. Japan is the only country with a larger population in all of Asia that has a higher standard of living than Taiwan's. Taiwan has an extraordinarily diversified economy: all the way from being virtually a ``silicon island'' and the world's third largest supplier of computer chips to being a major manufacturing power in such heavy industries as steel and shipbuilding. All of this has not come about by accident. Wise leadership, dating back to the 1950's, laid the groundwork for the dynamic nation we see today. With strong and continued American support--and this is ever more crucial to the security and stability of the entire East Asia region--Taiwan will thrive and prosper far into the future. Believe me, the world is watching to see how the United States treats democratic Taiwan, because the future of every other democracy in East Asia is ultimately contingent on the stand we take. The success of Taiwan must also continue to serve as an example--as well as a challenge--to the people and government on the Chinese mainland. The free, prosperous, democratic society that Taiwan has become is a glimpse of what can come to be on the mainland if the dictatorship in Beijing would get out of the way. And so I salute the Republic of China on Taiwan on the occasion of National Day. And I look forward to many more celebrations to come.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, last week I spoke on the floor about how strongly I feel against providing permanent normal trade relations to China. I touched on a number of subjects, including human rights, China's antagonism toward Taiwan, and the threat that it poses to our own national security. Unfortunately, over the last 2 weeks I have watched these issues be swept under the rug as the Senate has given away its voice on our trade relations with the most populous nation on the globe. But while I expect the Senate will pass this PNTR, I do not intend to go down without one final swing. It is too important for our Nation not to sum up why the opponents of PNTR believe it is such a dangerous mistake. For the last decade, I have been a vocal opponent of providing most favored nation or normal trade relations to China. For me, it all boils down to putting profits over people. I think that is just plain wrong and un-American. But while we were never able to stop Congress from approving MFN, at least we had an open and public debate on the issue every year. But by passing PNTR, we will even lose this right. For years we have been able to use the annual debate to discuss the wisdom of granting broad trade privileges to Communist China. When the students were massacred in Tiananmen Square, or when the Chinese military threatened democracy in Taiwan, or when the revelations came to light about China spreading weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, we had a chance in the House and in the Senate to shine the spotlight on Communist China. By passing PNTR, that spotlight will grow dim and the stick we were once able to wield under the most-favored-nation-status law will now be replaced by a rubber stamp bearing the letters, ``W-T-O.'' My opponents on this issue talk as if the American economy will fail if we do not pass this bill, that it is so important we should sweep aside all of the concerns about China and all of the evidence of wrongdoing because we should not ``rock the boat.'' That is ridiculous. I say, on something as fundamental as our national security, we should not just say we have to go along to get along. If this is as important an issue as supporters of PNTR make it out to be--that it is one of the most monumental votes in years--then we should have done it right. Instead, we have seen the deliberate process short circuited by blood oaths among Senators to oppose all amendments no matter how worthy. We have watched the supporters of PNTR move Heaven and Earth to avoid a conference with the House. Remember, the Congress of the United States is supposed to be writing this bill, not the business community, not the U.S. Trade Representative, and especially not the Chinese. The American people are listening. The cameras are rolling. The pressure is on to do what is right. But in this instance I think we have failed. But before we hand over the keys of our economic engine, I think it is important that we take one last cold, hard look at who is exactly doing the driving. This is China's record. China ships weapons of mass destruction to terrorist nations. China operates one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, brutalizing and slaughtering its own people. China threatens other free nations such as Taiwan and snubs its nose at the international community by occupying Tibet. China tried to buy access to our Government through illegal campaign contributions and to influence our own elections. There it is in black and white. But in the name of expediency and Presidential legacy, we are about to grant this nation full and open trade relations. I do not care how you spin it, that does not make any sense. For over a decade, the supporters of free trade with China have been making the argument over and over again that China is changing, that things are getting better, and we will soon reap the benefits of free trade with China. All the facts prove them wrong. It has been over 10 years since Tiananmen Square, and the Chinese are still slaughtering their own people. They are still selling weapons to terrorists. And they are still bullying other nations and threatening the United States. Nothing is any different with China now. In fact, it might be worse. Those who say otherwise are only fooling themselves. While the annual debates on MFN or PNTR, or whatever you want to call it, might not have turned the tide in China, to now provide even less debate and scrutiny can only make things worse for the Chinese people. I think the supporters are right about one thing. The final vote on this bill is going to be one of the most pivotal votes in years, one we will look back upon as a fateful moment in our history. I am afraid history is not going to be kind to Congress for passing this legislation, for abdicating our role in overseeing trade relations with China. Mr. President, it is a sad day in Congress. I am sorry to say we are going to do the wrong thing at the wrong time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUNNING

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

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations to China, and in support of Senator Thompson's China Non-proliferation Act. It is a sad time in the Senate. Soon we are going to vote on extending permanent normal trade relations--PNTR--to China. And it looks like it is going to pass. If we grant PNTR and give our seal of approval to China's application to join the World Trade Organization, Congress will not only relinquish its best chance to scrutinize China's behavior on a regular basis, but it will also give away what little leverage we have to bring about real, true change in China. I think that is a serious and dangerous mistake. For years, we have been able to annually debate trade with China in Congress, and to use the debate to discuss the wisdom of granting broad trade privileges to Communist China. When the Chinese troops massacred the students in Tiananmen Square, or when the Chinese military threatened democracy on neighboring Taiwan, or when revelations came to light about China spreading weapons of mass destruction to terrorist nations, we had a chance in the House and Senate to shine the spotlight on Communist China. I served on the House Ways and Means Committee for 8 years, and every year we debated most-favored nation trade--so-called MFN status-- for China. Supporters of MFN always had the votes to pass it, but it was still an important opportunity to focus attention on China's misdeeds and to make sure the American public knew about China's dirty little secrets. Now we are going to lose that ability. I would like to take some time today to talk about why we should not grant PNTR to China and explain my reasons for opposing it. While I know that the votes are probably there to pass PNTR, I want to lay out for the record what is at stake and also to argue that we should at a minimum take the step of also passing Senator Thompson's bill to maintain some semblance of accountability for Communist China. First, let's look at China's record when it comes to arms control and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that China's practice of making weapons of mass destruction available to rogue states like North Korea, Iran, and Libya has made the world a more dangerous place. The commission led by Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that recently examined this problem pointed out in its final report that China is ``a significant proliferator of ballistic missiles, weapons of mass destruction and enabling technologies.'' We know Communist China has sold nuclear components and missiles to Pakistan, missile parts to Libya, cruise missiles to Iran, and that it shared sensitive technologies with North Korea. In the last few months it has even been reported in the press that China is building another missile plant in Pakistan, and is illegally using American supercomputers to improve its nuclear weapon technology. Many of these technologies are being used by enemies of America to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. In short, Beijing is guilty of spreading the most dangerous weapons imaginable to some of the most treacherous and threatening states on the globe. That is about as bad as it gets. From experience, we know that China doesn't change its policies just because we ask them to. China only makes serious non-proliferation commitments under the threat of the actual imposition of sanctions. We have to hold their feet to the fire. A memorandum from the assistant director at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to the Clinton White House in 1996 makes the case: The history of U.S.-China relations shows that China has made specific non-proliferation commitments only under the threat or imposition of sanctions. Beijing made commitments [to limit missile technology exports] in 1992 and 1994, in exchange for our lifting of sanctions. Over the years, it is only when the United States has clearly brought economic pressure to bear on China that we have seen real, hard results from Beijing. For instance, economic pressure in the late 1980s and early 1990s led to China's agreement to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1992. In 1991, the Bush administration applied sanctions against China after Beijing transferred missile technology to Pakistan. Five months later, China made the commitment to abide by the missile technology control regime. In 1993, the Clinton administration imposed sanctions on Beijing for the sale of M-11 missile equipment to Pakistan in violation of international arms control agreements. Over a year later, Beijing backed down by agreeing not to export ground-to-ground missiles in exchange for our lifting of sanctions. Time and time again we have seen that Chinese respond to the stick, and not the carrot. And this experience certainly points to the fact that the threat of sanctions like those in the Thompson bill, and not the olive branch of greater trade, is what the Chinese will respect. Beijing's behavior has not been much better when it comes to democratic Taiwan. I have been to Taiwan, and seen how its commitment to democracy and the free market has enabled that country to build one of the most vibrant economies in the world. Taiwan is a friend of the United States and a good ally. But time and time again Communist China has rattled its saber and threatened the very existence of free Taiwan. Less than 5 years ago, China actually fired missiles over Taiwan. Since then China has conducted a massive military buildup across the Taiwan strait. Last year, CIA Director Tenet reported to Congress that while China claims it doesn't want conflict with Taiwan, ``It refuses to renounce the use of force as an option and continues to place its best new military equipment across from the island.'' This belligerent attitude threatens not only Taiwan, but more ominously relations throughout East Asia. The Pentagon's 1998 East Asian strategy report notes that many of ``China's neighbors are closely monitoring China's growing defense expenditures and modernization of the People's Liberation Army, including development and acquisition of advanced fighter aircraft; programs to develop mobile ballistic systems, land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles, and advanced surface-to-air missiles; and a range of power projection platforms.'' Recently there seems to have been a thaw in relations between China and Taiwan. This is a hopeful sign. But who knows when Beijing will change course and revert to its belligerent ways. We need to help keep the pressure on. Eliminating the annual debate on China trade in Congress will remove one of our most effective and high-profile options in pressuring the Chinese. In dealing with an adversary as tenacious and patient as China, this is exactly the wrong philosophy to adopt. Even more ominous than threats to Taiwan have been recent signs of increased Chinese belligerence toward the United States. In February, 1999, the CIA reported to Congress that China is developing air and naval systems ``intended to deter the United States from involvement in Taiwan and to extend China's fighting capabilities beyond its coastline.'' And we should not forget the recent threat from a Chinese general to fire a nuclear weapon at Los Angeles if the United States were to interfere in Taiwan-China relations. There are even indications that China's military could be anticipating a confrontation with the United States. In January, 1999, the Washington Times reported that for the first time, China's army conducted mock attacks on United States troops stationed in the Asia-Pacific region. Intelligence also reported that United States troops in South Korea and Japan were envisioned as potential targets of these practice attacks. President Reagan used to talk about adopting a policy of peace through strength in approaching the Russians during the cold war. That policy worked then, and it should be the policy we follow in confronting the Chinese. All of the experts tell us that China potentially poses the strongest military and economic threat to America in the 21st century. Passing PNTR sends the signal to China that we want trade more than we want peace. Instead, we should heed the lessons we learned in winning the cold war and understand that the Communist Chinese are more likely to respect our strength than to fear our weakness. Finally, the strongest case against PNTR can be made based on China's pathetic, indefensible human rights record. Let me quote from the very first paragraph of our own State Department's most recent report on human rights in China: The People's Republic of China is an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist Party is the paramount source of all power. At the national and regional levels, party members hold almost all top government, police and military positions. Ultimate authority rests with members of the Politburo. Leaders stress the need to maintain stability and social order and are committed to perpetuating the rule of the Communist Party and its hierarchy. Citizens lack both the freedom peacefully to express opposition to the party-led political system and the right to change their national leaders or form of government. The report goes on to note that in 1999: The government's poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as the government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent. That is our own State Department saying that. It doesn't sound like a nation that we want to encourage with expanded trade privileges. Many of my friends in this body argue that China is making progress on human rights, and that expanded trade and western influence will help turn the tide. They tell me that in China things have improved dramatically in recent years. I say, tell that to the tens of thousands of members of the Fulan Gong who have been hunted down and punished by Beijing over the past 2 years. Tell that to the prisoners in China's Gulags who continue to suffer under conditions that, in our own State Department's words, are ``harsh'' and ``degrading''. Tell that to the political dissents who are jailed out without charge only because they threaten the communist party's political dominance. Tell that to the children who were murdered because of China's brutal one child per family policy. Tell that to the people of Tibet. Mr. President, all those who say that things are getting better in China and that PNTR will help improve conditions in China are wrong. It's been 11 years since the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and the Chinese Government still carries out the same brutal, repressive tactics. Things aren't getting any better in China. They're only getting worse. The supporters of PNTR made the same argument year after year during the annual debates on most-favored-nation status for China. And year and year, Beijing showed no sign of changing its ways. None. In one way, this is a hard vote for me, Mr. President. Many of my friends support expanded trade privileges for China, and they make an enthusiastic argument for expanding access to Chinese markets in order to help American business compete with their overseas competitors. My gut reaction is to vote for free and expanded trade. In my mind, there isn't any doubt that the world is really drawing closer and closer together, and that it will be through trade that the United States can take advantage of its economic and technological advantages to maintain our dominant position in the world. But in other, more important, ways this vote is easy is for me-- because the issues are so clear when it comes to China, and because China's behavior has made it so undeserving of improved trade ties with the United States. Mr. President, I've tried to simplify this issue in my mind and I've boiled it down to a single question that I've asked of everyone I have talked to about China trade: Why should we give the best trade privileges possible under our law to a communist nation that so clearly threatens us and our values? We didn't grant most-favored-nation status to Russia during the cold war. But now we are on the verge of passing the most privileged trade status we can give to the communist nation that is bent not only on supplanting America as the dominant economic power in the world, but is also actively supporting dangerous, rogue nations that threaten our citizens and our way of life. It just doesn't make sense. In conclusion, I urge a ``no'' vote on the China PNTR bill, and a ``yes'' vote on the Thompson bill. The Chinese have not earned the right to trade with us, and they have show no inclination to change their ways. Senator Thompson's proposal is at least a modest attempt to preserve our options and to keep closer tabs on Communist China in case things take a turn for the worse. For years, the pro-China trade forces have argued that expanding trade with China is the carrot we can use to bring about democratic change in that country. The evidence has proven them wrong time and time again. Years of continuing MFN, or NTR, or whatever you want to call it haven't changed things in China. When it comes to China, the old saying still holds true: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Trade has not worked before as a carrot, and it certainly won't work in the future if we remove the stick of annual reviews and possible sanctions. That's why it's so crucial that we pass the China Non- Proliferation Act. Mr. President, when President Reagan negotiated arms control with the Russians, he used an old Russian phrase to sum up his approach--trust but verify. That strategy worked. But by granting PNTR we are trusting, but failing to verify. In fact, we are even giving up what little ability we even have to verify. The Chinese certainly haven't given us any reason to take them at their word. We need to verify and the Thompson bill is our best hope of insuring that China will live up to its word. Otherwise, why should we blindly trust a country that has proven time and time again that it doesn't live or play by the rules. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I regret that I was ill and unable to vote on the Senate floor yesterday during consideration of H.R. 4461, the FY01 Agriculture Appropriations Act. Had I been here yesterday, I would have voted in the following manner. On Rollcall Vote Number 218, the Harkin Amendment, I would have vote ``Aye'' on the motion to table. On Rollcall Vote Number 219, the McCain Amendment, I would have vote ``Aye'' on the motion to table. On Rollcall Vote Number 220, the Wellstone Amendment, I would have vote ``Aye'' on the motion to table. On Rollcall Vote Number 221, the Harkin Amendment, I would have vote ``No'' on the amendment. On Rollcall Vote Number 222, the Wellstone Amendment, I would have vote ``Aye'' on the amendment. On Rollcall Vote Number 223, the Specter Amendment, I would have vote ``No'' on the amendment. On Rollcall Vote Number 224, on the question of germaneness of the Amendment, Number 3980, I would have voted ``no''. On Rollcall Vote Number 225, final passage of the H.R. 4461, the FY01 Agriculture Appropriations Act, I would have voted ``Aye''. I yield the floor. telework

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is designed to protect the privacy of all Americans from identity theft caused by theft or abuse of an individual's Social Security number (SSN). Mr. President, identity theft is the fastest growing financial crime in the nation, affecting an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 people annually. Allegations of fraudulent Social Security number use for identity theft increased from 26,531 cases in 1998 to 62,000 in 1999-- this is a 233 percent increase in just one year! In May of this year, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse released a report that found of the more than 75% of identity theft crimes that took place last year, ``true name'' fraud was involved. What is ``true name'' fraud? It is when someone uses your Social Security number to open new accounts in the victim's name. That means a common criminal can apply for credit cards, buy a car, obtain personal, business, auto or real estate loans, do just about anything in your name and you may not even know about it for months or even years. Across the country there are people who can tell you about losing their life savings or having their credit history damaged, simply because someone had obtained their Social Security number and fraudulently assumed their identity. My bill prohibits the sale of Social Security numbers by the private sector, Federal, State and local government agencies. My bill strengthens existing criminal penalties for enforcement of Social Security number violations to include those by government employees. It amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to include the Social Security number as part of the information protected under the law, enhances law enforcement authority of the Office of Inspector General, and allows Federal courts to order defendants to make restitution to the Social Security Trust Funds. Mr. President, I think that it is high time that we get back to the original purpose of the Social Security number. Social Security numbers were designed to be used to track workers and their earnings so that their benefits could be accurately calculated when a worker retires-- nothing else. My bill would also prohibit the display of Social Security numbers on drivers licenses, motor vehicle registration and other related identification records, like the official Senate ID Card. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I will talk just a little bit about the marriage penalty bill that we have before us. I rise in strong support of this legislation to repeal the marriage penalty. I am going to vote for this bill because it restores fairness and equity to married Americans under the Tax Code. It is the right and honorable thing to do. By now I think all of my colleagues know the sad facts about the marriage penalty, and how it cruelly punishes married couples by forcing them to pay higher taxes on their income than if they were single. For example, a married couple where both spouses earned $30,000 in 1999 would pay $7,655 in federal income taxes. Two individuals earning $30,000 each but filing single returns would pay only $6,892 combined. The $763 difference in tax liability is the marriage penalty. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that overall almost half of all married couples--22 million--suffered under the marriage penalty last year. The average penalty paid by these couples was $1,400. Cumulatively, the marriage penalty increases taxes on affected couples by $32 billion per year. That is 44 million Americans who are paying a total of $32 billion in higher taxes each year simply because they took the walk down the aisle. In my home State of Kentucky alone, there are over 800,000 married couples, many of whom are punished by the marriage penalty. I can't think of one good reason why they should have to send more of their money to the Federal Government for the simple reason that they decided to get married. It is about the most unfair and unjust thing I have ever heard of. This bill provides real relief by making four simple changes to the code. It increases the standard deduction for married couples to twice the standard reduction for single taxpayers. It expands 15-percent and 28-percent income tax brackets for married couples filing a joint return to twice the size of the corresponding brackets for individuals. It updates the rule to eliminate the marriage penalty for low-income couples who qualify for the earned income credit. And it corrects a glaring oversight in the Code whereby couples who have to pay the alternative minimum tax are denied the ability to fully claim family tax credits, such as the $500 per child tax credit, hope and lifetime learning credits, and the dependent care credit. The marriage penalty is an outdated relic from the days when families primarily relied on one breadwinner. The penalty principally occurs because the Tax Code provides a higher combined standard deduction for two workers filing as singles than for married couples, and the income tax bracket thresholds for married couples are less than twice that for single taxpayers. As recently as several decades ago when most mothers stayed home and fathers trudged off to work at the factory each day, this might have made sense. Back then it did not matter nearly as much if the Tax Code's standard deduction for a married couple wasn't twice as much as for an individual, or if the income brackets for couples weren't double that for individuals. Few families had to account for a second income, and had never heard of the marriage penalty. But times change, and now in many families both parents do work. And I can guarantee you that they know their money is being wrongly taken from them by our immoral tax laws. Congress and the Tax Code haven't kept pace with the American family. It is time to change that and to make sure that our code meets the needs of the modern family in the 21st century in America. Even worse, the marriage penalty is a cancer that has spread throughout the Tax Code, and which goes beyond simply affecting standard deductions and income brackets. There are at least 65 more provisions in our tax laws where married couples are unjustly penalized. Frankly, I think the bill before us today should be just the first step toward completely rooting the marriage penalty out of our Tax Code. The adoption tax credit, the student loan interest deduction, retirement savings incentives, and dozens of other parts of the Code have all been afflicted by the marriage penalty, and are less available to married couples than if they were single earners trying to take advantage of this tax relief. This means that the marriage penalty not only punishes Americans who have to foot the bill, it further undermines the good public policy goals that Congress has tried to implement when it passed these changes to the Tax Code. This isn't the first time Congress has tried to fix the insidious marriage penalty. In 1995, Congress tried to increase the standard deduction for married couples to offset some of the marriage penalty. President Clinton vetoed that bill. Again in 1999, Congress passed marriage penalty relief. Again the President vetoed it. Both times the President said he liked the idea of marriage penalty relief, but didn't like other provisions in the legislation. So this year the House passed what I call a ``clean'' marriage penalty bill to try to answer his concerns. But, of course, he issued a strong statement in opposition to that bill. However, that did not stop him from recently proposing a little horse trading, and telling Congress that he would reconsider and sign marriage penalty relief legislation if we would also pass his Medicare prescription drug plan. If all that does is confuse you, I know it confuses me. But I think it means the President can't decide what he thinks about ending the marriage penalty. So I believe that Congress should help clarify his thinking and send him a bill soon so he can make up his mind and decide if he really wants to help provide tax relief to the 44 million Americans who are unfairly punished by the marriage penalty. It is time for the Senate to act and to send marriage penalty relief to the President. Until we do we are not going to be able to escape the fact that the marriage penalty causes a vicious cycle. It imposes higher taxes on millions of families, and it unfairly takes away billions of dollars of income from married couples. That money is then sent to Washington and used to help pay for child care and other programs that families might not have needed in the first place if they had been able to keep the money that was stolen from them by the marriage penalty. Mr. President, the marriage penalty is an evil that is eating away at our families. The American people want a divorce from the marriage penalty, and we can give it to them by passing this bill today. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. This is a sound, sensible approach to providing death tax relief. It phases out the tax over a ten-year period by gradually reducing the marginal rates that apply to estates. And it includes a so-called ``step-up'' in basis for the first $1.3 million in assets ($3 million for spouses) that applies if assets are ever sold by heirs. Right now the marginal rates assessed against estates are the highest in our tax code--55 percent for estates larger than $3 million plus a 5 percent surcharge assessed against larger estates. In fact, the United States has the dubious honor of imposing the most onerous estate tax in the developed world. This comes on the heels of recent moves by China, Canada and other developed countries to repeal their death taxes. It is pitiful that in the U.S. we have worse death taxes than Communist China. The estate tax was originally passed in 1916 to help fund our efforts in World War I. The last time I checked, that war was over. By the way, for my friends in the Senate who are still living in the early 20th century and oppose death tax repeal, I should point out that we won World War I. Mr. President, these are a number of sound reasons to repeal the death tax. The best of these is the awful effect it has on small business and family farms. For years and years Congress has heard the sad stories about how small business owners and farm families have to sell family enterprises just to pay the taxes on estates that are passed down from generation to generation. Additionally, a number of recent analyses make the case for death tax repeal. Studies by the Joint Economic Committee, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Heritage Foundation, the American Council for Capital Formation, the Institute for Policy Innovation, the Cato Institute, and others all indicate the federal estate tax imposes significant costs on the economy and family-owned businesses, resulting in lower economic growth, job creation, and the destruction of family businesses. The death tax hurts the ability of small businesses to vie against larger competitors. For instance, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, a lumberyard owner from New Jersey spoke of incurring up to $1 million in costs associated with preserving the family business pending the death of his grandmother. At the same time the family was incurring these costs, the business was also competing against a new Home Depot store that had moved into the area. Remember that Home Depot and other big business is not subject to the estate tax. In fact, a recent survey of 365 businesses in upstate New York found an estimated 14 jobs per business were lost in direct consequence of the costs associated with estate tax planning and payment. That amounts to more than 5,000 jobs lost in a limited geographical area. Nationally, the Wall Street Journal reported that an estimated 200,000 jobs would be created or preserved if the estate tax were eliminated. The liberals who oppose death tax repeal claim this is a red herring, and that the bill will really only would help the super-rich and multi- billionaires. In fact, 50 percent of the revenue the federal government derives from the death tax comes from estates worth less than $5 million. Additionally, the death tax provides less than 2 percent of the federal government's total tax revenues. To hear the Chicken Little liberals talk about it, repealing this tax would cause the sky to fall and the government to collapse for lack of funding. These are only crocodile tears from the big government addicts who cannot bear the thought of hard-working Americans not being forced to send more of their money to Washington to fund big government programs. Although this bill passed the House by a veto-proof margin, and enjoys bipartisan support here in the Senate, the President has still promised to veto it. Well, I think we should still pass it and let him explain to the American people why he favors ``death'' taxes that hurt our small business and rural communities. To his credit, the President did sign into law some death tax relief in 1997 as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act. Of course, we had to lead him kicking and screaming to the signing ceremony. And this came on the heels of his vetoing stronger death tax relief in the 1995 balanced budget bill. Then later he vetoed death tax relief in last year's tax bill. So who knows what he will actually do in the end. We should give him the chance to decide once and for all if he wants to help us repeal the death tax. Maybe, like Paul on the road to Damascus, he wills see the light. After all, as one senior House Democrat noted several years ago: ``We've learned that if you don't like the President's position on the issue, all you have to do is to wait for a few days for him to change his mind.' Mr. President, surveys have consistently shown that death tax repeal is popular with Americans--70 to 80 percent usually favor it in opinion polls. It is popular for the reasons I have laid out, but the most compelling reason is a moral one. After the death of a loved one, when families are grieving, Americans just do not believe that they, or anyone else, should have to talk to the undertaker and tax man on the same day. It's just not right. Since 1980, over 20 states have repealed their state death taxes, and it's time the federal government followed suit and learned a lesson from the states. It's time to kill the death tax, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to return to the underlying bill, the MILCON bill. I rise to speak in support of the Byrd-Warner Kosovo amendment that was included in this measure by a vote of 23-3 by the members of the Appropriations Committee. The committee got it right. It is time for Congress to exercise its constitutional authority and its constitutional responsibility to address the basic policy issues involved in the deployment of U.S. ground forces in Kosovo. More than 5,900 U.S. troops are currently participating in the NATO peacekeeping operation in Kosovo, despite the fact that Congress has never authorized--or even formally debated--U.S. involvement in Kosovo since the Senate, on March 23, 1999, authorized airstrikes against Yugoslavia. We need a plan. We need a policy. We need an exit strategy. And, right now, we have none of these. I remember very distinctly, back in 1995, when I was serving in the House of Representatives and we passed, with bipartisan support, a resolution calling on the President to obtain congressional authorization before deploying troops to Bosnia. That resolution passed by a vote of 315-103. Despite that vote, President Clinton went ahead with a large-scale and long-term deployment of tens of thousands of our troops to Bosnia without congressional approval or any meaningful debate. Our concern then was the fact that there was no well defined mission--no exit strategy--no plan. We were given assurances that we wouldn't be there long. Our troops would be brought home in a year or two. But now, here we are five years down the pike and our troops are still there. There is no end in sight. No plan. No exit strategy. The same thing is happening in Kosovo. We did our part in Kosovo. We bore the brunt of the costs and the risks involved in the air war over Kosovo. It was U.S. pilots and U.S. planes that forced the Yugoslav withdrawal from Kosovo that allowed for the deployment of the U.N. peacekeeping forces. We have done our part. I firmly believe that it is time for the European Community to live up to their responsibilities. Kosovo is in their back yard. Our European allies should assume more of the responsibility for peacekeeping. I believe that there is no justification for U.S. ground forces being placed in the middle of age old feuds and animosities. I believe we should never have sent U.S. ground forces into Kosovo. And I believe that we should bring our fighting men and women back home. I do not believe that we should drift along without a policy--without a plan--without an exit strategy--in Kosovo as we have been doing in Bosnia. The Byrd-Warner amendment does not really go as far as I would like to go. It does not say, ``We are going Home.'' It simply says that if the President of the United States can make a case for keeping troops in Kosovo--let him do it. The Byrd-Warner amendment is much more cautious and conservative than I would like us to be. But it would require the President to develop a plan to turn the ground combat troop element of the Kosovo peacekeeping operation over to the Europeans by July 1, in the year 2001. It does not require the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. It would terminate funding for the continued deployment of U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo after July 1, of next year, unless the President seeks and receives congressional authorization to continue that deployment. It gives the President a year's notice. It gives the European Community a year's notice. This amendment basically says to the President--not only our current President but whoever replaces him as well--develop a plan to get us out, or come before Congress and the American people and explain to us why it is the Nation's interest to stay in. This amendment simply says it is time to quit drifting along, it is time to quit putting the lives of our young people on the line without any clear mission, without any clear policy, without any plan. It is our responsibility. It is Congress' responsibility to conduct oversight of the policies that result in the deployment of U.S. troops abroad. It is time we lived up to that responsibility and the Byrd- Warner amendment does just that. It simply says, ``Drift'' is not a valid substitute for a national defense policy. And it tells the President to give us a policy, explain it, convince the American people and the U.S. Congress that it is in our national interest to keep ground troops in Kosovo--or bring our troops home. I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable and responsible amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson) The Senator from Washington is recognized.