Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the first bill I signed on when I came to Congress 9 years ago was the line-item veto, and, thank God, we are finally going to get it passed today. It has been a long time coming, but we have taken another major step in restoring fiscal responsibility to the budget process. Of course, I am talking about the line-item veto. The line-item veto will allow the President to end, once and for all, that notion that Federal spending cannot be controlled. As President Truman said, the buck will truly stop with the President. If he does not use that power that we give him, shame on him. I have been for this bill, by the way, when a Republican was in office, and now I am for it while a Democrat is in office. Mr. Speaker, we are going to give the President the opportunity to restore the fiscal integrity of this Government and to end the era of pork-barrel spending. We all have spending needs in our States and districts, but we have a duty to the country not to bankrupt the Treasury. All spending is not the same. Alpine Ski slides in tropical locations and ice hockey warming huts are not of the same importance as people with adequate needs for post offices and courthouses. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is not perfect. We have worked hard to make something work that everyone can use, that is good for the American people. It was crafted in an effort to accommodate the concerns of the broadest cross-section of the Members of this House and the Senate. I wish we had not gone down the road of applying the line-item veto to tax issues, but even on that issue we have tried to meet the concerns with the majority of this Congress. I hope and pray that everyone realizes that this line-item veto is in the best interest of the United States of America, and if in fact the courts look at this bill, as one of the prior speakers has talked about, that they will find how much the need is there for this and it will be ruled constitutional by the courts. We will let them decide. Let us just do our work and pass this bill today. Mr. Speaker, it's been a long time in coming but we are about to take another major step toward restoring fiscal responsibility to the budget process. I am, of course, talking about finally giving the President the line-item veto. The line-item veto will allow the President to end, once and for all, the notion that federal spending cannot be controlled. As President Truman said, the buck will truly stop with the President. If he doesn't use the power that we give him, shame on him. We are going to give him the opportunity to restore the fiscal integrity of this Government and end the era of the pork barrel. We all have spending needs in our States and districts but we also have a duty to the country not to bankrupt the Treasury. All spending is not the same. Alpine Ski slides in tropical locations and ice hockey warming huts are not of the same importance to the people as adequate post offices and courthouses. The bill before us is not perfect but we have worked hard to make it something that will work for the American people. It was crafted in an effort to accommodate the concerns of the broadest cross-section of the Members of the House and Senate. I wish we had not gone done the road of applying the line-item veto to taxes. But, even on that issue we have tried to meet the concerns of the majority of our Members. The line-item veto before us today will be criticized by some who think that it goes too far. Others will say that we did not do enough. That satisfies me that we did the right thing. To those who wanted us to include more on taxes, I would simply remind them that our financial problems have not been caused by too few revenues but by too much spending. In 1981, the year before the Reagan tax cut took effect, revenues were $599 billion and by 1993 revenues had grown to nearly $1.15 trillion., Even though revenues nearly doubled spending grew at an even faster pace. To paraphrase President Reagan, the American people are not taxed too little, their Government spends too much. Nonetheless, we recognized that there is the potential for abuse in the tax laws and we have taken adequate steps to address that problem. The limited tax provisions which appear from time to time in a large tax bill and which under the Democrats were often targeted to a specific taxpayer are now going to be subject to the line-item veto. That means that Congress will now specifically point out to the President what these provisions of limited benefit are and he can use the line-item veto on them. The nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee will identify these limited tax provisions for the tax writing committees based on the definition in this bill. And we will clearly point to them in what we send to the President for his signature. I feel confident that the President will see the good policy behind some of these very narrow tax breaks such as the orphan drug tax credit which provides a tax incentive for research into drugs for rare diseases. But he can use his veto pen to make sure that no unfair tax breaks are given to one or just a few taxpayers as has happened from time to time. I would also remind those who think that we should have gone farther on allowing the President to item veto tax provisions to remember that tax breaks allow people to keep their own money. Spending provisions take money from one person's pocket to be used for someone else's benefit. If that distinction isn't clear to you, I imagine that your constituents can help you see the light. They know whose money we are spending. This is a good bill and by passing it we can keep one of our most important promises from the Contract With America. I urge my colleagues to support line-item veto.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule: the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on National Security, the Committee on Resources, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there are no objections to these requests.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from Shirley Chater, the head of the Social Security Administration, in direct opposition to this amendment. The letter referred to is as follows: Social Security, Washington, DC, March 19, 1996. Hon. Jim Bunning, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Bunning: I am writing today to state the Administration's concerns regarding an amendment to H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995, which will be offered by Representative Bill McCollum (R., FL). Mr. McCollum's amendment would require the Social Security Administration to improve the physical design, technical specifications, and materials used in the Social Security card, to ensure that it is a genuine official document, and that it is secure against counterfeiting, forgery, alteration and misuse. Beginning in 1999, all new and replacement Social Security cards would need to contain these features. We are opposed to the adoption of this amendment. In making these improvements, the amendment would require SSA to use two performance standards. The first would be to ensure that new and replacement Social Security cards would be as secure against counterfeiting as the $100 Federal reserve note. The second performance standard would require SSA to make the Social Security card as secure against fraudulent use as a United States passport. The current Social Security card that is issued by SSA is already counterfeit-resistant. The current card includes most of the features that have recently been incorporated in the newly redesigned $100 bill, such as small disks that can be seen with the eye, but that cannot be reproduced by color photocopiers. In addition, the current card is printed on banknote-quality paper that has a blue marbleized background with raised printing that can be felt by running one's fingers across the card. While the McCollum amendment's requirements are non- specific, it appears that, at a minimum, SSA would be required to place an individual's photograph on each Social Security card, effectively turning it into a photo- identification document similar to the U.S. passport. It is not clear what other features might be required. We are opposed to this amendment because it changes the basic nature of the Social Security card. The card is intended to enable employees and employers to assure that wages paid to an individual are properly recorded to the employee's Social Security earnings record. Throughout its history, the card has never contained any identifying information other than the name of the individual to whom the number has been assigned. Many editions of the card have expressly stated that the card was not intended for identification. This has assured that the Social Security card did not become a de facto national identity card. Mr. McCollum's amendment includes language stating that the new card would not be a National identification card. However, to the extent that an individual's Social Security card has information of identity, the practical effect is to establish that card as a National identification document. The Administration is opposed to the establishment, both de jure and de facto, of the Social Security card as a National identification document. The Administration is also concerned that a de facto National identification card, such as the upgraded Social Security card, has the potential for becoming a source of harassment for citizens and non-citizens who appear or sound ``foreign.'' Such individuals could be subject to discriminatory status checks by law enforcement officials, banks, merchants, schools, landlords, and others who might ask for an individual's Social Security identification card. We are opposed to jeopardizing the civil rights of such individuals and urge the Members of the House to oppose the McCollum amendment from this perspective as well. Moreover, we believe that the additional workload associated with placing a photograph and other additional features on all new and replacement Social Security cards would adversely affect SSA's ability to handle its core mission, which is to administer the Social Security program. In that regard, I would note that the current Social Security card is entirely satisfactory from the perspective of fulfilling its role in the administration of the Social Security program. Any implementation of the McCollum amendment, should it be enacted, would have a substantial fiscal and personnel impact. We estimate that placing photographs on Social Security cards would increase SSA's administrative needs by as much as $450 million annually. Over 5 years, this would result in additional administrative spending by SSA of as much as $2.25 billion. If the effect of the McCollum amendment is to replace all Social Security cards currently in use, the cost would be $3 to $6 billion, depending on the features required. Finally, this workload would increase SSA's staffing needs by an estimated 5,700 work years annually. This would be a 10 percent increase in SSA's projected authorized staffing for 1999. The amendment would adversely affect SSA's core mission because it would establish a costly new work load that would significantly increase SSA's staffing needs. As you know, the Congress in 1994 passed crime legislation calling for a reduction in overall Federal staffing by 272,000 work years. SSA's projected share of this reduction is about 4,500 work years. To assure that these work year savings were realized, the crime bill placed a ceiling on all Federal employment. This, coupled with the freeze that has been imposed on the domestic discretionary spending cap, which includes SSA's administrative budget, makes it highly unlikely that SSA will be provided with the additional resources required for placing photographs on Social Security cards. If SSA did not have authority to employ additional staff, the only other alternative available to the agency would be to defer or discontinue other work loads associated with the administration of the Social Security program. We believe that this possibility could pose a grave threat to SSA's ability to carry out the essential tasks associated with assuring that benefits are paid to those who apply for them as soon as possible. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the onset that all aspects of the Social Security number fall solely under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, specifically, the Social Security Subcommittee, of which I am chairman. The McCollum amendment would expand the use of the Social Security card for immigration control purposes without a fair hearing before the Ways and Means Committee. The McCollum amendment would require the Social Security Administration to issue new and replacement Social Security number cards beginning in 1999 that are as secure against counterfeiting as the $100 Federal Reserve note, and as secure against fraudulent use as a U.S. passport. That means you have to have your picture on it. This radically changes the purpose of the Social Security card from a wage reporting document to an immigration control national identification card. The Social Security Administration has already incorporated a series of security features designed to secure Social Security cards against counterfeiting or tampering. These include very similar technologies that were used in the recently issued $100 Federal Reserve note. But, by implication, the McCollum amendment goes beyond this and requires that future Social Security cards have a photo I.D., one of the main features of the U.S. passport. The overall impact could result in the Social Security Administration having to replace up to 200 million cards by the year 2006, at a cost to the Social Security Administration of 3 to 6 billion dollars, depending on what you add to them. To put this in perspective, the entire annual administrative budget for processing applications and paying monthly Social Security benefits to all 43 million eligible Americans is $3 billion. Although Social Security benefit payments are off budget, SSA administrative expenses are subject to the domestic discretionary cap, and funds are already insufficient to enable SSA to carry out its mission or processing disability claims on time, or conducting the continuing disability reviews required by law. Furthermore, SSA staffing is subject to a ceiling, and is scheduled for reduction by 4,500 positions by 1999, even though the number of those receiving Social Security benefits is projected to increase by 3 million in the same period. While the McCollum amendment would authorize the appropriation from general revenues to carry out the new duties required, it is impossible to determine what the Appropriations Committee will fund from year to year. In short, spending caps are tight and are projected to get tighter, and requiring SSA to assume duties outside its mission would cause further deterioration of the Social Security services it is required to provide. The current tamper-resistant Social Security card currently issued enables SSA to credit wages and fulfill its mission administering the Social Security programs. While I strongly support appropriate measures to curb illegal immigration and employment, I must oppose any proposals that would change the issuance or purpose of the current Social Security card without thorough examination and debate by the Committee on Ways and Means. Most Social Security cards belong to law-abiding citizens. According to SSA, unless a totally fool-proof method is discovered to prevent fraudulent documents from being used to obtain Social Security cards, the result of reissuing these cards would be inconveniences to law- abiding citizens, rather than the added immigration control benefits intended by this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose the McCollum amendment.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out one thing about the Social Security Administration and their ability to deliver the services that they are now required to deliver. We have a program in Social Security called SSDI, or Social Security disability insurance. Because of lack of funds in the Social Security Administration's administrative budget, there is presently a backlog of a half million people waiting a year or more to qualify for Social Security disability. I know there are an awful lot of Members who hear from constituents who are having trouble getting on SSDI because the Social Security Administration's administrative budget is inadequate to process claims on time. On the back end of SSDI, there is a backlog of 1.7 million people on disability that are overdue for continuing disability reviews. CDR's are not being done because the Social Security Administration does not have enough money in its administrative budget now to do those reviews in a timely fashion. Mr. Chairman, if we could get just a little more money into the Social Security Administration's administrative budget, we could literally save billions of dollars. We have a GAO study that showed we can save $6 in benefits for every $1 we spend on continuing disability reviews. The point I am trying to make is that SSA cannot handle the functions that they are required to do now with the administrative budget that they have, without adding the additional burden the McCollum amendment would impose on SSA.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. It is on the original McCollum amendment; it is not on this one.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I believe that scoring was on a different McCollum amendment, not the present one being offered.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to lend my support to the Barr amendment. Without this important amendment, the bill, despite the good intentions behind it, is fatally flawed and should not be supported. We do not need another so-called antiterrorism provision to add to the ones that are already on the books. We do need the kind of death penalty reform that the Barr amendment would provide without the trampling of our civil liberties. The Barr amendment will give us the ability to enforce the death penalty and end the frivolous appeals that keep legitimate cases from being heard in a timely manner. But, the Barr amendment strips away the threat of big brother snooping into the private affairs of American citizens. In my view, it is important that we adopt the Barr provision so that private records about consumer credit, public accommodation, and common carrier information do not become tools of the Federal Government without a search warrant. The amendment will also block Federal authorities from digging around in citizens' telephone billing records without a court order. Equally important, the Barr amendment will prevent the wrongful use of wiretaps by Government agents simply claiming a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Mr. Chairman, fear of terrorism is no excuse for infringing on the civil liberties of the American people. I think that the author of the base bill, while completely well- intentioned in this effort, would be the first to admit that there is nothing in this bill that would have prevented the tragedy in Oklahoma. Terrorists act outside of the law. The Congressional Research Service has compiled a list of the current antiterrorism laws on the books that spans 17 pages. We do not need to add to that list. To the extent that a committed terrorist can be deterred by the law, I believe the knowledge that we have a swift and sure justice system would be a far better deterrent. That is why the death penalty reform portion of the bill is so important. Criminals need to know that if they are given the death penalty it will be enforced and the people need to know that their government will protect them from the predators of society. Stripped of the intrusive provisions, the underlying bill will provide us with much needed change in the criminal justice system. The bill will provide the mandatory victim restitution that so many of us have wanted for so long. It will make it easier to deport criminal aliens and of course it enhances the ability of the justice system to carry out the execution of violent criminals. These are all laudable provisions and I congratulate my dear friend from Illinois, Henry Hyde, for including these measures. We just need to make sure that we attach the Barr amendment so that we can keep the bill focused on punishing criminals rather than expending the power of big government. We should not indulge ourselves in legislation simply because it makes us feel good to pass something--so that we can go home and say that we passed a bill. If we are going to pass something, lets make sure that it is consistent with the constitutional freedoms that we Americans enjoy and guard so jealously. Without the Barr amendment, the bill before us may make us feel better; but, it will be just one more expansion of Federal power and one more restriction on the civil liberties of the people. As the late Justice Felix Frankfurter said, ``Personal freedom is best maintained * * * when it is ingrained in people's habits and not enforced against popular policy by the coercion of adjudicated law.'' I urge my colleagues to support the Barr amendment and the bill as amended.

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. 2778.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2778) to provide that members of the Armed Forces performing services for the peacekeeping effort in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be entitled to certain tax benefits in the same manner as if such services were performed in a combat zone, as amended.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring before the House today a bill I sponsored to make sure that our brave men and women serving in Bosnia are able to receive the benefits that they deserve while risking their lives in the service of their country. The Internal Revenue Code provides specific benefits to our service personnel who are on active duty in a combat zone. But, these benefits are available only if the President issues an Executive order designating the area as a combat zone. Unfortunately, the peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia have not been designated by the President as being in a combat zone. There have already been casualties in Bosnia and more are likely. That means that our service personnel are in a combat zone type situation even if the President has not declared it a combat zone. Let us be honest. When you are being shot at or dodging landmines you are in a combat zone. Diplomatic niceties aside, these brave warriors are in danger because of the policies of their Government and we must take care of them. Quite frankly, we must act to insure that we do not have a repeat of what happened in Somalia. In Somalia, the families of the soldiers who lost their lives could not receive the benefits that should have gone to them under the Tax Code because the President never declared it a combat zone. Two of those who were killed were Congressional Medal of Honor winners. But because of the technical language of the Code they could not receive the tax benefits because Somalia had not been designated as a combat zone. H.R. 2778 provides that members of the Armed Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, or Macedonia who receive hostile fire or imminent danger pay will receive combat zone tax benefits. That means enlisted personnel stationed in these countries would not be taxed on their pay for any month that they receive hostile fire or imminent danger pay. Officers would be taxed on only a portion of their pay. Members of the Armed Forces would be eligible to postpone their tax filing and payment obligations. Additional benefits would also apply. The bill also makes some technical and administrative improvements to the combat zone tax provisions. More importantly, it makes some long- needed changes to the combat zone tax laws. Currently, enlisted personnel in a combat zone are not taxed on their pay for any month they are in the combat zone, but officers are allowed to receive only $500 each month tax-free. This $500 was set in 1966 and has not been increased for inflation. This bill would raise that $500 limit to equal the top pay grade for enlisted personnel. The bill also extends one of the combat zone tax benefits, the suspension of tax filing and payment obligations, to personnel involved in Operation Joint Endeavor even if they are not physically located in the former Yugoslavia. Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense personnel who have been deployed as part of Operation Joint Endeavor outside of the United States and away from their permanent duty stations would be eligible for this benefit. Plainly, these people do not have easy access to their tax records and have concerns other than finding the nearest post office. This is truly a bipartisan bill. More than 120 Members of Congress have cosponsored this bill. It was reported by the Ways and Means Committee on a unanimous voice vote. Moreover, as it was reported by the Ways and Means Committee, the bill incorporates the best of practically all of the various combat zone benefit bills introduced in recent months. In short, the bill before us reflects the input of many Members, Democrats and Republicans, as well as the Defense Department and the Treasury Department. In particular, I want to recognize Chairman Bill Archer, Sam Gibbons, and Ike Skelton for their contribution to this report. Making sure that our military personnel in Bosnia receive all of the benefits that we can give them under the Tax Code is the least that we can do for them. I hope that we will demonstrate our unqualified support for our troops in Bosnia by adopting the bill before us today. This is not about whether you agree with the policy that put United States forces in Bosnia. Many of us have had grave reservations about the policy that sent our troops there in the first place; but, the point is--they are there. And, since they are there, we need to do everything in our power to make sure that they are treated fairly in the Tax Code. This bill does that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to speak after 25 years. I have been retired from baseball for 25 years. None of the numbers that were on the back of my card have changed in that time. They are all the same numbers that I retired with, so it has been a long waiting process. Thank God it happened while I was still on my feet. Sometimes it happens posthumously, and I really deeply appreciate the veterans committee. As the gentleman from Illinois, Henry Hyde, said, ``Those are some of your peers that voted you in.'' Particularly I talked with Yogi Berra, who was on the committee, and I talked with Peewee Reese, who was on the committee. I talked to Bill White, one of my teammates from Philadelphia, after the vote was taken today. So it is deeply appreciated. I would be remiss if I did not mention Alan Lewis, who happened to be a writer, a beat writer in Philadelphia, when I was playing. It was through his efforts that this happened, nobody else's. Thank you very much.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the message together with the accompanying bill be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, obviously the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip, is incorrect. Recommendations of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct have been changed on the floor of the House; in the recent past, in fact. Certain recommendations for censure were changed to a different level, to reprimand, and other things like that. So, in fact, they were changed on the floor of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, let me say something. I have served on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for 5 years. First of all, the misstatements that have been made here that it was a unanimous vote on the rule was incorrect. I have tried to correct that publicly, but I have not been able to because nobody will bring it to the public's face. Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for the rule change and I am going to continue to tell my colleagues, I did vote for the resolution to bring the report to the floor. This started out as a rule change for all of Congress. It has turned into, by the office of the Democratic whip, a referendum on the Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, I think it is insane. I think it is wrong. I think it was not in the best interest of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and if anybody has any doubt about supporting the Solomon amendment, read the recommendations of the office of the Democratic whip and they will vote for the Solomon amendment and against the recommendations of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to show the Members of this body those people who have applied in the last 3 years and asked the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for permission to do books, and that does not include those who wrote them without asking permission, because presently under the law you do not have to ask permission. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 299 and in support of the Solomon amendment. No matter how hard we try we cannot insulate the Members of this body from every potential temptation and every potential conflict of interest that exists in this world today. To try to do so is ridiculous. To try to do so demeans this body's integrity and the integrity of each and every Member of this House of Representatives. If a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives has intelligence and imagination enough to develop ideas that can catch the interest of the book buying public--what is the harm of that? If a Member of this body has enough writing ability to convince the book buying public to shell out $10, $20, $30 for a book, where is the harm in that? Sure, we can prohibit advances, and I agree that we should do so, for the potential abuse does occur in advances and the Solomon substitute does just that. But, for God's sake, do not gag the Members of this body with the intelligence and ability to put ideas down on paper. Do not tell the American public that the Members of this body cannot be trusted to test their ideas in the market place. This year, 10 Members of this body have submitted book contracts to the Ethics Committee for consideration. Changing the rules retroactively is totally unfair to these Members. In the past 3 years another 15 Members or staff personnel have submitted book contracts to the Committee of Standards. And this does not even count the others who did not submit their contracts to the Ethics Committee. We do not know how many books are being written or sold because, currently, the rules do not require anyone to submit contracts for review. We will not know until the income is reported on the financial disclosure statements. The Solomon amendment requires that all books be submitted. It is just not right to stifle the talents or the message, and it is a violation of the first amendment of the Constitution. It is a matter also of common sense and dignity. Do not demean this body or the integrity of your follow Members by slapping a gag rule on this institution. Please, support the Solomon substitute.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, once again the House is going to express the will of the American people regarding the Clinton policy in Bosnia. The American people do not want our troops to go to Bosnia. Mr. Clinton and his followers have never made the case that this country's vital interests are at stake in Bosnia. That is why this House has repeatedly voted to oppose the deployment of U.S. forces there. There is simply no compelling reason for one drop of American blood to be shed in that troubled country. Contrary to Mr. Clinton's contention that this is a NATO matter, there is no threat to NATO from Bosnia. NATO is a mutual defense pact. The members of NATO are pledged to treat an invasion or attack on one of the members as an attack on all. There is not threat of an invasion of any NATO country by Bosnia. Bosnia is not going to invade Canada or Germany or England. What is happening in Bosnia is a civil war. It has been a horrible bloody affair with thousands of innocent people killed or hurt. But, it makes no sense to inject U.S. forces into that situation when we do not have any vital interest at stake. In my book, the injury or death of even one American soldier is not acceptable if there is no threat to the security of the United States. Clearly, there is no such threat in the case of the civil war in Bosnia. I feel for the people of Bosnia and I hate the fact that they have been suffering during this war. It has been brutal. But, there are brutal civil wars going on in several countries and we are not contemplating putting our military personnel into those fights; we should not. There is no more moral imperative to intervene in Bosnia than there is for United States intervention in Sri Lanka or Sudan. It is horrible that there is evil in the world and that men do wretched things to one another. But, it is not the job of the U.S. military to act as the world's security guard. Our military exists to protect our national security, not for enforcing other people's peace treaties. History is not on the side of those who, in my estimation, naively believe that we can solve the Bosnians' problems for them. The ethnic, religious, and territorial rivalries among the Serbs, Croats, and Moslems are many centuries old. The battles that the Bosnians are fighting today have their roots in the atrocities committed over the centuries. Bosnia has been conquered, controlled, traded, and oppressed by the various empires, kingdoms, and dictatorships that have ruled the region. We cannot change their history and we cannot assuage their mutual grievances. The peace that was brokered in Dayton, OH, may make us feel good about ourselves but it is a paper peace and our soldiers will be shot at with real bullets. We have all seen the old films of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain coming down the steps of the airplane waiving the peace treaty with Hitler and boldly proclaiming peace in our time. Let's not repeat that mistake. We intervened in the civil war in Vietnam. Let's not forget the lesson we learned from that. Congress should not give a blank check for the use of our forces to a President who has not spelled out exactly why they should be sent and what they are to accomplish and how we are to get them out. The policy is wrong. The American people do not want it. This House has repeatedly rejected it; but, Mr. Clinton has ignored us. I urge my friends and colleagues to vote to support the troops and to oppose the Clinton intervention policy.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have the good fortune to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] the chairman of the full Committee on Ways and Means.