Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 61. I did not get to pitch against Jackie Robinson very many times in his career, because it was just about over when I finally got to the big leagues. When I started out I was in the American League with Detroit and he was in the National League with Brooklyn, so the only time I really got to face him was in spring training games in 1954, 1955, and 1956. But in those days, Brooklyn was the team to beat. They had a real dynasty going. In fact, they made it to the World Series in 1952, 1953, and again in 1955 and 1956. And Jackie Robinson was one of the biggest reasons they were such an outstanding team. He was a real trail blazer and an outstanding ball player. A man of destiny. In the mid 1950's, when I finally made it to the major leagues, nearly 10 years after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, there were not too many blacks in the American League, and that was 8 years after Jackie Robinson played his first game for Brooklyn. I can tell my colleagues this: Under the best of circumstances, when an individual is starting out, it is pretty frightening to walk out to the pitcher's mound or to the batter's box in a big league game. That is even true when an individual's race is not an issue. So it is mind- boggling to consider the kind of pressure that Jackie Robinson must have been under when he walked out there the first time when race was an issue, a very big issue. The fact that he tried, the fact that he dared, the fact that he made it is tremendous testimony to his courage, his self-confidence, and to his love of baseball. Jackie Robinson changed the face of baseball and, for that matter, all other sports, and he made a tremendous contribution to race relations in this Nation. Fifty years ago Jackie Robinson made a difference. It is right and fitting that we honor the memory of his achievements here today and his courage in doing the things that he did when he lived. My good wishes to Rachael and all his family today.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a father of 9 and a grandfather of 30, in strong support of the partial-birth abortion ban and the rule which allows this bill to come to the floor. Today's debate is different from most abortion debates we see on the floor each year. This debate is not about the viability of the fetus, this debate is not when life begins. This is about the killing of an infant. The defenders of partial-birth abortion do not even try to deny that we are talking about a viable human being. Instead, the defenders of partial-birth abortion have always tried to defend it by saying it is only used in cases of protecting the health and future fertility of the woman or the mother. This claim is obviously not true. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, along with doctors from all over this country, have stated that partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary to protect the health or future fertility of the mother. During the last month the truth regarding this procedure has finally come to surface. The pro-abortion movement has developed a serious credibility problem. Mr. Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted that he misled Congress. The pro-abortion movement lied about partial-birth abortion. The truth is that this barbaric procedure is not a rarity. Doctors are performing thousands of partial-birth abortions each year. The majority of them are being performed as elective procedures done on healthy women carrying healthy babies. That is a tragedy. It is time to put an end to this barbaric procedure. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 1122.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 58. The President's decision to certify Mexico's nonexistent antidrug efforts is just one more step in his ongoing retreat from the war on drugs. And this Congress should not allow it to stand. First he cut funding for our own Nation's antidrug programs and emasculated the drug czar's office and now he is saying to Latin America, the status quo is just fine with us. But take a look at the status quo. It's putrid. Fifty to seventy percent of the cocaine entering the United States comes through Mexico. Twenty to thirty percent of the heroin coming into our country is supplied by Mexico. Eighty percent of the foreign-grown marijuana entering our country comes from Mexico. With statistics like this staring us in the face, we cannot and should not pretend that the Government of Mexico is making any kind of good-faith effort to stem the tide of corruption and money laundering and drug activity that currently exists in that nation. I urge my colleagues to support the Hastert amendment to delay certification for 90 days unless the President obtains real assurances that the Government of Mexico intends to cooperate in our antidrug efforts. Certifying Mexico now would send the wrong message to our friends in Latin America and around the world. If we are serious about fighting drugs, we have to show Mexico we are serious now.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the question before us today is not whether we should support international family planning and educational programs. The question today is whether or not this Nation or this body supports the use of abortion as a means of family planning. As far as I am concerned, the terms ``family'' and ``abortion'' are totally incompatible. This Nation and this Congress cannot and should not subsidize an organization which advocates abortion or which lobbies for the legalization or expansion of abortion as a means of limiting population growth. We should not allow abortion to become our next major export. It is true that the Helms amendment prevents the direct use of U.S. funds to pay for abortion procedures. But it does not prevent indirect funds of programs that promote the legalization or expansion of access to abortion as a means of birth control in developing nations. To do that, we must defeat this resolution and reinstate the Mexico City policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution. Help us reinstate the Mexico City policy and show the world that we are willing to support education and other family practices, but not at the expense of the innocent unborn. Vote ``no'' on this resolution and vote ``yes'' on the Smith-Hyde-Oberstar substitute.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the President's request to release $123 million in foreign aid to support an international pro-abortion agenda. I have one question for my colleagues today. Why in the world should we ask the American taxpayer to provide funding for abortions administered overseas when we don't provide Federal funding for abortions in the United States? It makes no sense at all. We know that in many areas of the world, the population is growing out of control and that something must be done to control this massive problem. However, a ``no'' vote on the Presidents resolution will not jeopardize our status as a world leader in this area. It will simply confirm that abortion is not an acceptable form of birth control. This body has made it clear on several occasions that we are willing to provide funds for international family planning programs if the participants will simply promise not to use abortion or lobby for the use of abortion. Many of the international organizations that benefit from this funding are taking part in highly questionable practices. We know that the International Planned Parenthood Federation in London has a history of cooperating with the one-child abortion policies in China. This organization has also been involved in active lobbying to convince developing nations in Africa, Asia and the Americas to overturn their abortion laws. Is this something we need to pay for? I don't think so. The question before us today is not whether we should support international family planning and education programs. The question today is whether or not this nation, and this body, supports the use of abortion as a means of family planning. As far as I am concerned, the term ``family'' and ``abortion'' are totally incompatible. This Nation and this Congress cannot and should not subsidize programs and organizations which advocate abortion or which lobby for the legalization or expansion of abortion as a means of limiting population growth. We should not allow abortion to become the next major U.S. export. It is true that the Helms amendment prevents the direct use of U.S. funds to pay for abortion procedures, but it does not prevent indirect funding of programs that promote the legalization or expansion of access to abortion as a means of birth control in developing nations. To do that we must defeat the resolution and reinstate the Mexico City policy. I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution; help us reinstate the Mexico City policy and show the world that we are willing to support education and other family planning practices but not at the expense of the innocent unborn. Vote ``no'' on this resolution and vote ``yes'' on Smith-Hyde- Oberstar.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I personally have mixed feeling about term limits. The high rate of congressional turnover in the past 10 years indicates that term limits are not really necessary. The votes have been doing a good job of limiting congressional careers the way it is. And I am concerned that term limits could reduce the congressional influence of small States like Kentucky. However, there is such widespread public support for the idea that I am willing to let the people work their will on the issue through the ratification process at the State level. For that reason, I did cosponsor, House Joint Resolution 2, the term limits resolution which limits service in the U.S. Senate to two terms or 12 years and which limits service in the House of Representatives to six terms or 12 years. I do intend to vote for this version of term limits today and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution because it is the fairest and most reasonable choice available to us. Mr. Chairman, article 1, section 2 of our Constitution reads, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the People of the several States * * * '' When the Founding Fathers drafted the document that became the framework for our Nation they had in mind one of the key principals of democracy, the peoples right to choose. I have listened to the debate on this issue, I have heard my colleagues decry, ``let's give government back to the people * * * '' and ``let's put an end to career politicians * * *'' Why don't we stop the rhetoric. If you want to give the Government back to the people we don't need term limits--we need campaign finance reform because democracy is its own best term limiter. The Founding Fathers rejected the concept of term limits and that is why term limits were not included in the Constitution. Their intention was to let democracy take its natural course. I agree with them and reject the concept of term limits. If we want fresh ideas and if we want to return the Government to the people, let's stop all of the rhetoric and put an end to the special interest money that pours into political campaigns and level the playing field with real campaign finance reform. Then we won't need term limits because the democratic process will work as the Founding Fathers intended.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today, in behalf of myself, Andy Jacobs, Clay Shaw, and other members of the Ways and Means Committee on both sides of the aisle, I am introducing the Rehabilitation and Return to Work Opportunity Act of 1996. This legislation will help Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability recipients who want to work return to a life of financial independence and self-sufficiency. We are all too familiar with the huge increases in the Social Security disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income disability rolls over the last decade. From 1986 to 1995 alone, the rolls grew almost 70 percent, to 7.5 million recipients. Unfortunately, there is no end to this alarming trend in sight. In fact, new disability awardees are, on average, becoming younger and younger. This means they will spend more of their lives dependent on Social Security or SSI unless Congress gives them the opportunity to obtain the tools and training they need to return to productive and self-sufficient lives. The General Accounting Office recently reported that the Social Security Administration has placed little priority on helping disabled recipients return to productive employment. GAO found that SSA's rehabilitation programs don't focus on providing the support and assistance that many people with disabilities need to transition from the disability rolls back to work. In my view, SSA's record on rehabilitation is appalling. Of the 6.6 million working-age people who were receiving Social Security or SSI benefits in 1995, only 4 percent were even referred for rehabilitation. Of these, only 6,238, or less than one-tenth of 1 percent, were successfully rehabilitated. This isn't fair to disabled recipients, who will otherwise face a life of dependency and denied opportunity. It is time we let Social Security and SSI recipients who are disabled know we care enough to invest in their future. The Social Security Act requires that individuals applying for disability benefits be referred to State vocational rehabilitation agencies for services, but State agencies are reluctant to take on the more difficult cases. GAO estimates that if only an additional 1 percent of the 6.6 million working-age people receiving Social Security or SSI disability benefits were to leave the rolls by returning to work, an estimated $3 billion could be saved in subsequent years. Under my legislation, Social Security and SSI disability recipients would no longer be limited to using State vocational rehabilitation agencies for services, but would be able to choose whether to receive rehabilitation services from private, nonprofit, or State rehabilitation providers. Disabled recipients would, for the first time, have a broad choice of certified providers from whom they could receive the rehabilitation services they need. It would be up to the individual with the disability to decide which rehabilitation provider best met his or her needs. The competition that would result would guarantee that persons with disabilities would be choosing from the highest quality services. In addition, my bill would extend Medicare coverage for 5 years for disabled recipients who work, and Medicare would continue to be the primary insurer for employers with fewer than 100 employees. And employers who hire Social Security or SSI disability recipients would be eligible for a 1-year tax credit for the employer share of FICA taxes. The legislation creates a commission of rehabilitation experts to oversee the implementation of a new out-come-based rehabilitation program designed to help recipients move from dependency to self- sufficiency. The program would create a competitive system utilizing networks of service providers; a straight-forward incremental fee structure for providers that caps overall costs at certain milestones of service; criteria for SSA to contract out the administration of the new system; and a coucher-type system to maximize consumer choice and limit costs. To ensure that disabled recipients receive the best quality services, the bill calls for standards, including review by consumer organizations, that rehabilitation providers must meet in order to serve Social Security or SSI disability recipients. These are all features that persons with disabilities, rehabilitation providers, and small businesses agree are necessary for a successful return-to-work effort. I look forward to hearing comments from all of these constituencies so that in the next Congress we can take legislative action to provide real opportunity to persons with severe disabilities, enabling them to return to productive employment and self-sufficiency. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in this effort by supporting this legislation.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is time to take back our borders and cut off the stream of illegal aliens currently flooding across them. This can only be done by increasing the number of border patrol guards and Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] agents. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act provides over 5,000 border guards and increases the number of INS agents by 300. This additional manpower will give a significant boost to current Republican initiatives such as Operation Gatekeeper and Operation Hold the line which were started under President Bush and have clearly demonstrated their effectiveness in keeping illegal immigrants out of our country. Unfortunately, no matter how much we try to tighten down our borders, some illegal aliens will slip through the lines. But, even though they may get by our first line of defense this bill will make it more likely that they will be hunted down and deported by the joint efforts of local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies. In addition to the increase in manpower that this bill provides, H.R. 2202, gives law enforcement agencies the technological resources and jurisdiction powers to locate illegal immigrants and deport them expeditiously. Lastly, this bill makes a conscious effort to reform our legal immigration system. Most importantly it will hold sponsors of legal immigrants financially responsible for their guests in our country. As Congress has taken efforts to crack down on ``deadbeat dads'', H.R. 2202, will crack down on ``deadbeat sponsors''. In doing so, we will save millions of welfare dollars, which are now being collected by legal aliens. This bill is not the end-all of immigration reform, but this bill, coupled with the Republican welfare bill which was recently signed into law will go a long way in slowing the tide. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the override of the Presidential veto on H.R. 1833. Mr. Speaker, late last year, the House of Representatives took a very moderate step toward eliminating one, specific and particularly horrible method of abortion--the partial birth abortion. No one can reasonably justify this kind of abortion. It is grotesque. It is repulsive. Unfortunately, the President of the United States has caved into the pressure of pro-abortion extremists and vetoed this ban of one, single, indefensible procedure. Hopefully, today, the House of Representatives, guided by the voice of moderation and common decency will see fit to override that veto. There are those who try to argue that this procedure is necessary to protect the life of some mothers. That is not true. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop says that partial birth abortion is unnecessary and in no way protects a woman's life. There are those who say that this procedure is necessary to prevent the birth of children plagued with defects and deformity. As a grandfather of a disabled child, I am outraged that this argument is used to defend such a heinous practice. Only an extremist could justify or defend partial birth abortion. I urge my colleagues to support moderation and decency, support the ban on partial birth abortions and override the President's veto.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4039.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4039, the Social Security Miscellaneous Amendments Act of 1996. A few months ago, the Social Security Administration came to us, and asked for legislation to make technical or perfecting changes they needed to implement current law. Andy Jacobs and I then introduced this legislation, which was favorably reported by the Ways and Means Committee on a bipartisan basis. Andy's constructive, bipartisan leadership on Social Security issues will be greatly missed. Again, let me make it clear that the administration requested these technical provisions. According to the Social Security Administration, these amendments are needed to clarify, first, the drug addicts and alchoholics provisions enacted under Public Law 104-121, thereby closing a loophole and preventing payment of benefits not intended by Congress; second, to clarify that the only judicial review available to disability applicants is the normal judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, and that the State disability determination services and their employees, like Federal officials, cannot be sued for their official acts when making disability decisions under the Social Security Act; third, to grant SSA continued demonstration project authority; and fourth, to perfect provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, allowing for optional tax withholding from Social Security benefits. In addition to the technical provisions requested by SSA, H.R. 4039 includes provisions that further restrict payment of Social Security benefits to prisoners. These provisions are virtually identical to ones included in the recently enacted welfare reform bill affecting prisoners who receive supplemental security income benefits. They restrict payment of benefits to all criminals incarcerated throughout a month, and provide a financial incentive to correctional facilities to report their incarceration to SSA. The provisions save the Social Security trust funds $35 million over 7 years. I want to commend my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Herger, for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank both the minority staff and SSA staff for providing their assistance in formulating this package. The Social Security Subcommittee has worked diligently to assist SSA by providing the legislative corrections that SSA said that it needed to fulfill its responsibilities to Congress and the American public. Neither the Congress nor the American public wants to see Social Security benefits paid to drug addicts, alcoholics, or criminals who should not receive them. I hope that for the sake of the hard-working American public, the Senate will see fit to act quickly so that current programs may continue to run as they should, and the intent of Congress to stop Social Security payments to drug addicts, alcoholics, and prisoners will be fulfilled. I urge support of H.R. 4039. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4039) to make technical and clarifying amendments to recently enacted provisions relating to titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act and to provide for a temporary extension of demonstration project authority in the Social Security Administration, as amended.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act and urge my colleagues to vote for it. It is a good bill. Two years ago, when the First Lady's massive health care reform proposal was being considered and rejected by Congress, two things became clear. It was obvious that there was virtually no public support for a dramatic increase in the Government's involvement in our health care system. But it also became clear that there were quite a few health care issues on which there was widespread agreement. This bill is the result of that consensus. It contains many of the reforms that are really needed in our health care system--reforms that people really want. It contains the reforms that we can all agree on. This bill does what is doable in health care reform. The key element of this bill is something I have been working on for several years--legislation to ensure portability of health care insurance. Currently, too many people are locked out of health coverage because they have some sort of chronic health problem or preexisting condition. Our bill will solve the problem by eliminating preexisting condition exclusions for people with prior health insurance coverage. This is a long overdue change. The Health Care Availability and Affordability Act does some other worthwhile things too. It will also improve access to health insurance by raising the health care deduction for self-employed from 30 to 80 percent, and by allowing small businesses to form insurance pools to get better rates for their employees. It will allow tax deductions for long-term health care coverage; allow terminally ill patients to receive tax-free accelerated death benefits from their insurance companies and create an exciting new concept called medical savings accounts. I'm very excited about the potential for medical savings accounts. These accounts will allow people to set money aside in tax exempt accounts to use for medical expenses. Later, unused funds remaining in the accounts could be used for other purposes. What better incentive could you ask for to make people better shoppers and wiser users of health care? The medical savings account is a great idea. Unfortunately, because the President objected to the MSA concept, we had to scale back the availability of these accounts in this bill. In the final bill, MSA's will be allowed on a 4-year test basis and be limited to 750,000 policies. But I am confident that in less than 4 years, medical savings accounts will prove themselves and Congress will clearly recognize their value and expand their availability. This is a good bill. It doesn't solve all our health care problems but it contains many worthwhile reforms and it is doable. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and also in support of H.R. 3734, the Republican welfare reform bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Republican welfare reform bill before the House today. I supported it in both the Ways and Means Committee and the Budget Committee, and I am going to vote for it today. The case for welfare reform is pretty clear. The system that we have now just does not work. Period. During the last 30 years, we have spent over $5 trillion on antipoverty programs, but we have not reduced the percentage of Americans who actually live in poverty. In fact, the poverty rate has slightly risen during that time. It's time for some tough love, and I think that this legislation fits the bill. If we are going to help people escape poverty, we have to encourage personal responsibility. The welfare system that we have now is supposed to act as a safety net to help people when they need a hand, but instead it acts to trap them in poverty and ends up becoming a way of life. We simply say that if you are able, you should work. If you are noncitizen, you should not come to the United States expecting a handout. And if you are a felon, you are going to be kicked off the dole. All of the recent innovation in welfare has taken place in the States. They have raced ahead of Washington in attacking poverty with new, inventive approaches and we should give them the latitude they need to craft programs at the local level that really work and help people. Our bill does that. Very important to me, our proposal also attacks the problem of illegitimacy. Welfare now actually encourages out-of-wedlock births and induces single, teen mothers to move out on their own to try to raise their children. We think that this is absolutely wrong-headed, and that's why our bill ends the practice of subsidizing out-of-wedlock births and tells teen mothers that they have to live with their families if they want to continue to get public assistance. Mr. Speaker, I am also compelled to speak about the transracial adoption section in this bill. I deeply appreciate my Chairman, Mr. Archer, agreeing to add to it the base bill. We know that many children, mainly minority kids, are left to languish in foster care because of the skin. The practice of race- matching that prevails in the adoption community is discriminatory, and we have to stop it if we are going to give these kids a chance and get them into permanent, loving homes. In the past 18 months, the House has twice passed legislation that penalizes adoption agencies that continue to race-match, but the President vetoed our first effort and the other bill's future in the Senate is up in the air because of the gridlock in that body. By including the transracial section in this bill, we are only improving our chances at actually passing legislation this year and bettering the lives for the half a million children who are stuck in foster care today. Mr. Speaker, I commend the bill before us today to my colleagues. It takes welfare in a new direction and I believe that it will give hope and expand opportunity to millions of Americans who are trapped in poverty.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin]. (Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me assure my good friend from Massachusetts and my good friend from Maryland that I was a union negotiator for 12 years, so I know something about unions. But they were in the private sector, and they were not supported with Social Security and Medicare trust fund money. We know what our amendment does. We know that it requires the Social Security Administration to use Medicare and trust fund money only for the purpose for which it was collected from hard-working, tax-paying Americans. They pay FICA tax to the Treasury so it can be used for retirement and disability payments under Social Security. About the Hoyer amendment, we are not sure. But I will tell the gentleman from Maryland, if he would like to sponsor appropriation bill to use taxpayer funding from general revenues for union activities at the Social Security Administration, an any other agency of the Federal Government, because I believe employees are entitled to be represented, I suggest that he do that as part of the appropriations process. I urge support of the Bunning amendment.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins]. (Mr. COLLINS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. (Mr. RIGGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen]. (Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].