Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report to H.R. 434, the Africa/CBI bill. This is a bad proposal, and it should not become law. In fact, the only good thing that I can say about it is that it's not as bad as it could have been. Still, it should not pass. In recent years, we have lost over 5,000 textile jobs in southern Kentucky. Nationwide, we have lost over 100,000 textile jobs since NAFTA. They're gone. They're not coming back. Now there aren't many left, and I am not going to support any legislation that I believe is going to ship the rest of these jobs overseas. But, that's just what this bill would do. It would suspend quotas and duties on clothing made from many African-made fabrics. It calls for duty-free imports of T-shirts and fabric from the Caribbean. In short, it's going to make it cheaper and more enticing for the textile companies to locate overseas, where labor costs are lower, and to take jobs with them. The bill also extends duty-free treatment to other ``import sensitive'' items like certain types of watches, electronic articles, steel products, footwear, handbags, luggage, and glass products. I respect the good intentions of those who support this bill in wanting to help poor countries in Africa and the Caribbean. But I don't think we should do that at the expense of American workers and their jobs. Furthermore, this bill simply looks like a one-way street to me. It makes it easier for African and Caribbean nations to import products to the United States, but as far as I can tell it doesn't do much for the United States. Of course, our economy is a lot bigger and stronger than all of their's put together, but that doesn't mean we just give away part of the store for free. Mr. President, I believe strongly in free trade. I have long supported fast-track legislation to give the President broad authority to negotiate trade agreements. And I voted for the GATT legislation the last time it came before Congress. But I also believe in fair trade, and this bill isn't fair. As I said earlier, this bill is bad but it is not as bad as it could have been. When Congress first started working on this bill over 5 years ago, it was intended to provide NAFTA-like treatment to imports from Caribbean nations. Fortunately, this bill doesn't go that far. But, it still follows the same flawed concepts that are behind NAFTA and have driven at least 7,000 Kentucky jobs south to Mexico. Supporters of this bill say that economic growth and investment in African and Caribbean nations will benefit us in terms of increased exports and increased domestic employment because of those exports. Of course we want healthy economies in this area to help strengthen the growth and stability of democracy. But it doesn't make sense to sacrifice a United States industry to do it. As I pointed out on the Senate floor last year, the Caribbean Basin apparel and textile business is already booming. Last year, apparel and textile exports from the Caribbean and Central America to the United States grew 9 percent, double that of the United States economy. Passing this bill simply rewards the U.S. companies that have already moved offshore, and entices others to do the same. In the process, we stand to lose another 1.2 million jobs in the apparel and textile industry. We keep talking about creating a level playing field when it comes to fair trade. But this bill pulls the field right out from under U.S. industries which have already had an uphill fight just to stay alive. This is a flawed bill and I'm going to vote against it. I just don't see where it's in our interest to make it easier for other countries to compete with American industries, and to entice U.S. companies to relocate abroad. This bill is not fair to the American worker. I urge my colleagues to oppose it and any amendments that even try to make it better. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I would like to conclude by saying a former colleague of the Senator from Massachusetts is a little struck also, Senator Wendell Ford, because Owensboro happens to be his hometown. It is definitely in Kentucky. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, we have been debating the future of the Federal role in education. Specifically, we are looking at who will take the lead role in educating our children. Will it be the Federal bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or will it be the teachers and parents who are closer to the children and understand their needs better? Last week, President Clinton went on an education tour that I think can answer those questions. His tour took him to four cities: Davenport, IA; St. Paul, MN; Columbus, OH; and Owensboro, in my home State of Kentucky. That is, we think the President visited Owensboro. I am one Kentuckian who is not sure the President ever made it there. The President's web site has something of a travelogue on his trip, the supposed trip the President made, that says President Clinton's school reform tour started in Owensboro, KY. Look closer and one will notice something is wrong. Apparently, Owensboro is not in Kentucky anymore. In fact, it looks like Kentucky isn't Kentucky anymore; it has moved to Tennessee. I find this terribly interesting. We Kentuckians have nothing against Tennessee except, of course, when the Wildcats are playing the Volunteers. We like Owensboro in Kentucky, right where it is. While he was in Owensboro, if that is where he really was, the President spoke about his Federal programs that require States to spend Federal money on Washington's priorities. The President thinks this is a good approach. When I look at the President's map that approach troubles me, and it is not just because the White House cannot tell Kentucky from Tennessee. If you will notice, western Kentucky is no longer there; it has been annexed by Illinois: No more Paducah, no more Mayfield, no more Murray. I have some good news for my friends down there, and I have some good friends down there who have sent me word that they want to stay in Kentucky. I wonder if they know this administration sold them off to Illinois. The truth is, some of us do not know where President Clinton was for sure. We know we have newspaper stories and video clips which report that he was seen in Owensboro plain as day. But, on the other hand, we have the Federal Government, the source of all wisdom, which the President would have us entrust with the education of our children, telling us the President and the entire city of Owensboro, KY, is actually in Tennessee. I trust the teachers and the parents in Owensboro, KY, with the education of their children. They know what is what. When presented with a choice between handing over control of their children's education to the Federal bureaucracy in Washington, DC, or letting those decisions be made by someone who personally knows the names of those children, I trust they will make the right choice.

Mr. BUNNING. I will, after I have finished. This administration says they care for the children in Owensboro, KY, but they do not even know their names. Parents and teachers know their names and the needs of their children and students. I trust them. As the Senate continues this debate on this education bill, I urge my colleagues to support education policies that truly return power to the people and away from the Federal bureaucracy. Of course, it is very obvious there is one new Federal program needed, a program that is desperately needed--a geography class for this White House--because, quite literally, this administration cannot quite find Owensboro, KY, on the map. Now I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BUNNING. That is very accurate. It is also accurate, there are very many other schools, not only in Owensboro but down along the border at Williamsburg and throughout many counties in Kentucky that have improved their educational facilities.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, this week we begin the debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, probably the most important Federal program dealing with education in the Nation. The Program needs to be reauthorized and that gives us several options. We can tinker around the edges, make a few changes, put more money in the pot, and maintain the status quo, or we can use this opportunity to reform the program and try to make it better. As far as I am concerned, if you look back over the past 35 years, the choice between these two options is fairly clear. Since 1965, the Federal Government has spent more than $120 billion on title 1, the largest Federal education program at meeting the needs of disadvantaged students. Despite this tremendous amount of money, the performance of disadvantaged students continues to decline--77 percent of children in high-poverty urban schools are reading ``below basic.'' Test scores of 12th graders in math, reading, and writing have remained stagnant or have declined over the last 30 years. Fourth grade students in high-poverty schools remain 2 grade levels behind their peers in low poverty schools in math. In reading, they remain 3 to 4 grades behind. The achievement gap is now widening instead of closing. Half the students from urban school districts fail to graduate on time, if at all. Seven thousand schools are failing according to current accountability standards. Many have been failing for 4 to 6 years, some have been failing for as long as 10 years. These schools continue to receive Federal funds. It is clear that the Federal education effort is failing, and it is equally clear that our schools around the Nation are forced to pay a heavy penalty for the Federal funds they do receive. Burdensome regulations under the current Federal system have a heavy price tag. We keep talking about the need for more teachers but fewer than 50 percent of the personnel employed in 1994 were teachers. Because of unnecessary Federal regulations, administrative staffs continue to grow every year. Compliance with Federal rules and regulations cost States millions of dollars, and millions of man-hours each year. The Federal Government only provides somewhere between 5 and 7 percent of local school funding, but it demands as much as 50 percent of all school paperwork. That means 49 million hours--or 25,000 employees working full time--are spent each year working on redtape and paperwork--not educating children. Based on the facts, it is patently clear that status quo is not enough. We need to reform, we need to overhaul this Federal education program. It is not working the way it is supposed to be. It is not getting the job done. And the bill before us this week does include some major reforms. This bill takes up where the Ed-Flex bill that we passed last year left off. It would increase flexibility and local control, allowing educators and teachers and parents to make the decisions about local education needs rather than Federal bureaucrats. What would best serve the students in Louisville, KY might not be the same thing that is needed in Williamsburg. Individual communities have different needs. Individual school districts differ--and their needs differ. We need to give local educators and parents the freedom and the flexibility to develop local solutions to local needs without handcuffing them to one-size-fits-all solutions designed in Washington. We clearly need to reduce the cost of compliance with Federal regulations so that the money we provide actually makes it to the classrooms instead of being frittered away on paperwork and regulation. We need to let teachers teach, and school administrators and parents design programs that work. This bill does just that in several important ways. Flexibility, accountability, and portability. It includes a 15-State demonstration project called Straight A's which would give States that choose to participate considerably more flexibility in how they use Federal funds. It would allow States to consolidate up to 12 Federal formula grant programs and integrate that Federal money with State and local funds to serve their children. This bill would also establish ``performance partnerships'' that all the States could participate in. It too, would offer States greater flexibility in how they spend Federal education funds in exchange for accepting new accountability standards. This bill also contains provisions which would exempt small, rural schools with small student populations from several formula grant program requirements and give them the flexibility to target Federal funds so that they best meet school district's needs. But hand in hand with flexibility, there must be accountability. These new programs established in this bill require that in exchange for this added flexibility, the schools must meet certain standards. They must get results. This bill would reward States that close the achievement gap between the highest and lowest performing groups of students. States not the Federal Government, would have to establish specific goals for improving performance of all students, and parents could find out whether their children's schools were meeting those goals because States and local school districts would be required to issue report cards on school performance. We have that in Kentucky, thanks to educational reform. I think parents around the Nation deserve to know which schools are educating children and which are failing. Finally, this bill gives parents an opportunity to do something about it, if their children's school is not getting the job done. It gives them an opportunity to send their children to a different school--one that is getting the job done. This bill creates a demonstration program which will allow States to make title I funds portable--so that the money follows the student. Too many disadvantaged children are trapped in failing schools. This bill would allow children to escape. The bill requires a school district to offer any child enrolled in title I school that has been designated as failing for 2 years, the option of transferring to another higher performing public school. Flexibility, accountability, and portability--these three elements are essential ingredients of the kind of reform that is necessary and all three of them are incorporated in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. The status quo is not working. It has proven that red-tape and regulation are not the answer--that more money alone is not the answer. Let's try something new: flexibility to let our teachers teach; accountability to require our schools to get results; and portability that will give parents more control of their children's education. I congratulate Senator Jeffords and his staff and the committee for the great work that they have done on this bill. As we debate this legislation over this week, and probably into next, I want everybody to come to the floor and debate the issues that are in this bill because this bill is good for kids' education, and that is what the money we send back to the States should be used for. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, this amendment is pretty simple. It says that any entity that receives the entire $1.25 billion loan under this bill must provide to its subscribers all of the local television broadcast signals which are broadcast in that State. Since coming to the Senate I have heard from my constituents about satellite TV more than any other issue. More than impeachment, Social Security, taxes, or anything else. That might sound strange, but I constantly hear from Kentuckians who are unhappy that they can't get local news and local programming. Believe me, when the University of Kentucky is playing basketball, that's a big deal. Kentucky is rural, and a lot of our communities are isolated and hard to reach. Cable isn't an option for them because the cable companies won't come--it's too expensive to wire them. And they often can't get a clear signal with traditional TV antennae because of the geography and landscape of our commonwealth. This has led many Kentuckians to try satellite coverage, but then they often hear more about New York City, Los Angeles, or Chicago. With my amendment, I am trying to make sure Kentuckians and other Americans living in rural areas get local news and local programming. In Kentucky, this problem is made even worse because much of our State is dominated by media markets from surrounding States, making it even harder to get local programming. I live in northern Kentucky near Cincinnati, OH. It is frustrating to constantly hear Ohio news and not be able to find out what is happening in Louisville, Lexington, Paducah, or Bowling Green. In talking with the industry, the satellite technology soon is going to allow for spot beaming to provide local-to-local coverage for everyone. I think that is great. I encourage them to keep pushing forward. I also want to make sure that if anyone gets the full value of this loan, then they have to provide local programming for local areas. These loans are going to be guaranteed 80 percent by the Federal Government and taxpayers in Kentucky and other rural States deserve to be considered. I am simply trying to look out for my constituents. I have a feeling there are other rural States in the same boat. I bet they are as frustrated as we are when they can learn about New York City politics or the Chicago Cubs baseball or the latest news in neighboring States but they cannot find out what is going on in their own backyards. I urge adoption of this amendment. I want to make sure Kentuckians, and all others in rural States who do not have local broadcasts in their own State, can receive local news from their State, not just news from an adjoining State. I urge passage of the amendment. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments about the mistaken identity by the National Association of Broadcasters in relationship to my amendment. What we have tried to do, and what this bill has successfully done, is allow most of the areas in the United States to have access to dish or satellite television. But there are areas that have been excluded. I will give you an example of some of those. Areas are excluded when most of the television stations that are received instate are based out of the State. I use Kentucky as an example. If you want to hear something in Kentucky and you don't live in Louisville or Lexington, or a couple of other smaller cities, such as Bowling Green and Paducah, you must get your television news, sports, entertainment, and everything, from out of State, a different ADI, such as Cincinnati; Charleston-Huntington, WV; Knoxville, TN; Nashville, TN; Evansville, IN; and on and on and on. This bill does not adequately cover those areas because it says generally if you are brought in an ADI area that is covered by an out- of-State television station, you must accept that. There can be exceptions. But, living in Kentucky, I surely don't want to have to watch Atlanta television, or Atlanta news, or, for that matter, Cleveland, OH, news on my satellite dish. I know most Kentuckians don't want that. Of all the issues that have come before the Senate, this has been the one on which I have received the most information. I received a paper put out by the National Association of Broadcasters that criticized my amendment to allow all or at least require one of the local markets in Kentucky to carry it on the dish or on the satellite. It said it ``destroys the network affiliation relationship.'' But that is hogwash. It does not destroy that. It just means that the people in certain areas don't want to watch New York television as the thing they get on their dish. If they are only going to go down to the first 60 major markets in this country, that is what we are going to have to do in many of the rural areas. This loan guarantee program that we have will cover an awful lot of other areas. But South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and plenty of areas in this country do not have major markets and don't carry all four--ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX--and will no doubt not have the coverage they might like to have in their area. ``Undermines localism'' is another thing the National Association of Broadcasters has said about the amendment I just withdrew. Am I going to watch a local station from Paducah and go down there and buy something that has been advertised on a Paducah station if it is carried on my dish? Of course not. I am going to go to my local store, or wherever it might be, and buy the exact same thing that is available in my local area. I can pick up a local station out of Cincinnati with rabbit ears. I don't need a dish for that. It ``creates two classes of satellite viewers''--no, it doesn't. We all pay almost the same amount for basic satellite television. My amendment did not change that. ``Flies in the face of both copyright and communication laws'' --not being a lawyer, and having dealt only with the prior law we passed last year, I know full well it doesn't violate any of those provisions in that law we had on the floor of the Senate. Last, but not least, it says, ``it creates a huge regulatory disparity.'' No other multichannel video provider has nearly such an extensive ``must carry'' requirement. We don't want them to carry every station in Kentucky. We want them to carry one that has four of the major networks. That is what we want. We will work it out later. I have talked with Senator Burns, who is most expert on this, and I hope to work with Senator McCain on Commerce to get this done. This is not the time nor the place to fight this fight. I will fight it another day at a later date. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise, first of all, to support S. 2097, the LOCAL TV Act of 2000. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment I had previously offered and on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. BUNNING. I ask unanimous consent that the prior order to allow Senator Byrd to follow Senator Grams be vitiated.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Bunning amendment.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, and the repeal of the Social Security earnings limit. This is a day that many of us have worked toward for a long time, and the sooner we can pass this bill and send it in to the President, the better. Our seniors deserve it. I think by now we all know how the earnings limit works. It penalizes seniors between 65 and 70 who receive Social Security benefits but also continue working. For every $3 they earn over the earnings limit, they lose $1 in benefits. Under current law, in 2000 the limit is $17,000. It rises to $25,000 next year, $30,000 in 2002, and with inflation after that. The earnings limit is a Depression era relic whose time has come and long gone. It first became law back in the 1930's when Social Security was started, and was passed by Congress as a way to encourage seniors to retire so that their jobs could be taken by younger, unemployed workers. At a time when our economy was fighting for its life, and unemployment was close to 25 percent, an earnings limit might have seemed like a good idea. Now when unemployment is threatening to dip below 4 percent and many of our nation's employers are clamoring for more workers, it's clear that the earnings limit has outlived whatever usefulness it once might have had. From time to time over the years, Congress has looked at changing the earnings limit. In fact, several times we did tweak it here and there by raising the income level. But, like a vampire, the earning limit has been hard to kill altogether--it continued to threaten seniors and their livelihoods. Now we have the opportunity to get rid of the earnings limit altogether. I say that it's time to drive a stake through the heart of the earnings limit once and for all. Mr. President, I was privileged to serve in the other body as the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee for 4 years, and before that as the Ranking Member for 4 years. It was my bill that we passed in the 104th Congress that lifted the earnings limit to its current level of $30,000 from what was then $11,250. If we could have repealed it altogether, we would have. But the budget landscape was different back then. We were still looking at huge deficits, and we were using Social Security surpluses to finance general government programs. Now things are different. We have budget surpluses across the board, and we can focus on doing the right thing for seniors irrespective of other spending and tax needs. Our economic prosperity has handed us a golden opportunity to repeal the earnings limit. Times have changed for the better. I know there are others in Senate who have worked on this issue for years. But, for my colleagues who have not lived with legislation to repeal the earnings limit as long as some of us, let me just briefly describe for them what it has been like over the past 14 years for those of us who have been trying to pass legislation. In 1987, those of us who had just been elected to the House for the 100th Congress adopted as a project the repeal of the earnings limit. And at least 11 bills were introduced in Congress to lift or repeal the limit altogether, and we worked the issue hard. But, nothing happened. It was like banging your head against a wall. Then during the 101st Congress, then-Congressman Denny Hastert, and another 100th congressional class member, introduced a bill to repeal the limit and got 267 cosponsors in the House. Again, nothing happened. In the 102d Congress, we managed to get 278 supporters in the House to support our bill to lift the earnings limit. We talked up the issue constantly. Still, nothing. So we kept plugging along, and once again in the 103d Congress, we introduced a bill and signed up over a majority of the House--225 Members--on our legislation. But, guess what? Nothing happened. Then something did happen. In 1994, Republicans took control of Congress. And in 1995, as part of the Contract with America, we passed legislation to lift the earnings limit to its current annual level of $30,000. This was one of the most popular bills we passed that year, and I was proud to be the lead sponsor. But, we still weren't finished because this proposal was part of larger legislation that was vetoed by President Clinton as part of his government shutdown strategy. He said he liked the earnings limit repeal, but he vetoed the bill anyway. So we were back at Square One. But, we took the President at his word that he liked the earnings limit repeal, so after the veto we quickly passed a stand-alone bill in the House to increase the earnings limit in late 1995. The next March, we included it in must-pass legislation to lift the Federal Government's debt ceiling, and it was signed into law. In all, it took almost 10 years to raise the earnings limit, so I hope my colleagues keep this in mind now that we have a chance to act quickly to get rid of the limit altogether. Mr. President, people are living longer and longer. And many of them want to work after they turn 65. They want to work longer, and they can do more. Why on earth should we penalize them--by taking benefits they have already paid for--for doing that?! It just doesn't make sense to pay them with one hand, and to rob them with the other. The average life expectancy for women in America is almost 80 now. For men, it's getting close to 75. That's a big increase from must a few decades ago when we passed Social Security and the earnings limit. Now, many seniors want, and need, to work for income after they officially retire. Social Security and pensions sometimes aren't enough, and if seniors want to feather their nests with a salary, more power to them. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Not only will seniors thank us, we can take heart in knowing that the Congressional Budget Office tells us that we will even save $700 million in Social Security administrative costs by repealing the earnings limit. There are 800 employees at SSA who help administer the earnings limit. After this bill becomes law, they will be freed to perform other tasks for the Social Security Administration. We have the opportunity to do away with the earnings limit altogether, and I say ``the sooner the better.'' I can't think of one good reason not to pass this bill immediately, and get it down to the White House as soon as possible. It's good policy, it's good politics and it's the right thing to do for our seniors and our country.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nominations of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to sit on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. There are serious problems with the 9th Circuit. It has become a renegade Circuit, far out of the mainstream of modern American jurisprudence, and I am afraid that if these nominees are confirmed, they will only make a bad situation worse. Over the past six years, the 9th Circuit has been overturned 86% of the time by the U.S. Supreme Court, a terrible record. During this period, the Supreme Court has reviewed 99 decisions from the 9th Circuit, and overturned 85 of those decisions. During the current session, the 9th Circuit has been overturned in all of the 7 cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, and in one term--1996-97--27 of 28 decisions were overturned, including 17 by unanimous votes. This is the worst record of any circuit, and is especially troubling given the size and influence of the 9th Circuit. It covers almost 40% of the country, and 50 million Americans--20 million more than any other circuit. The fact that the 9th Circuit has been slipping toward judicial extremism is no laughing matter, and directly affects a large part of our nation and almost one-fifth of our citizens. The main reason for the judicial imbalance on the 9th Circuit is that Democratic appointees currently comprise 15 of the 22 positions on the 9th Circuit, 10 of whom were appointed by President Clinton. I do not begrudge President Clinton his appointees; he is the President, and has the constitutional right and responsibility to fill the federal bench. But the 9th Circuit has become lopsided with activist judges that has helped push it far out of the judicial mainstream. The circuit cries out for balance. Confirming Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the 9th Circuit would only exacerbate its problems. Mr. President, I do not know the nominees and I have nothing against them. Their records show that they have long legal backgrounds, and deserve a final vote on their nominations. But, the record also shows that they both tilt far too left in their judicial views and would not help to restore balance or judicial sensibilities to the 9th Circuit. Ms. Berzon has worked as the general counsel of the AFL-CIO for over a decade, and was long active with the ACLU. At least one conservative group has described her as the ``worst judicial nomination President Clinton has ever made.'' Mr. President, Ms. Berzon is entitled to her views and I am not going to criticize her for her personal beliefs. But looking at her past and the causes which she has pushed show that, if confirmed, she is not going to help steer the 9th Circuit toward the judicial mainstream. As for Judge Paez, he currently sits on the federal district court in the 9th Circuit, and his nomination is opposed by over 300 grassroots conservative organizations that are troubled by his judicial activism. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, have even taken the unusual step of opposing his nomination because of their concerns over some of his past decisions, arguing that he has pursued an agenda that ``has the potential to cause significant disruption in U.S. and world markets.'' Mr. President, business groups usually do not become involved in judicial nominations, and when they do it should make us wonder. Even the Washington Post editorial page, no friend of conservative causes, has cautioned that opposition to Judge Paez ``is not entirely frivolous'', and points to past public remarks by Judge Paez that show how ``sympathetic'' he is to activist, judicial thinking. Mr. President, since coming to the Senate I have voted for some of President Clinton's judicial nominees, and I have opposed several. Yesterday, in fact, I voted to confirm Julio Fuente to sit on the Third Circuit. But confirming Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to sit on the 9th Circuit would be a mistake, and would directly affect 50 million Americans. The 9th Circuit has serious problems, and confirming these nominations are not going to fix those problems. Consequently, I am going to oppose them.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume debate on the bankruptcy reform bill under the previous order. There are a few amendments remaining, and those Senators who have amendments under the agreement are encouraged to work with the bill managers on a time to debate their amendments. As previously announced, votes ordered with respect to the bankruptcy legislation will be stacked to occur on Tuesday at a time to be determined. In an effort to complete the bankruptcy bill, Senators may expect votes throughout the day on Tuesday and Wednesday. Following completion of the bankruptcy bill, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the nuclear waste legislation. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment. We are scrambling around right here in the U.S. Senate to pass a stopgap spending bill to keep from shutting down a major portion of the Federal Government. So, it is very fitting that we add an amendment to that stopgap spending bill that would help us keep a Federal judge from shutting down the coal mining industry in West Virginia and possibly other States like Kentucky as well. This is a matter of survival for many of our coal mines. It is essential that we act now to prevent unnecessary damage to the industry--to prevent unnecessary unemployment--and to prevent unnecessary economic devastation in areas which have already been bypassed by the economic boom times that have blessed much of the Nation. A Federal district court judge in West Virginia ruled on October 21 that a well-balanced working agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection violated the Clean Water Act. That arbitrary ruling which basically overrules three Federal agencies' interpretation of the law is going to jeopardize the coal industry immediately in West Virginia and potentially in other States like my own State of Kentucky as well. We need to pass the Byrd Amendment to stay this ruling until we have had time to get the results of a pending environmental impact statement. It is a matter of simple fairness. The jobs and lives of many of our constituents are at stake. I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the work incentives and ticket to work legislation. This is a day I have looked forward to for a long time. It is a great day for the disabled in America. By passing this legislation, we are going to make it easier for them to return to work and become self-sufficient. We are going to give those who want to try to return to work the tools they need to support themselves and to escape from the dependency on a monthly Government check. For years, the Social Security disability program has provided a vital safety net to assist those who fall on hard times and need help when they become sick or injured and cannot support themselves. It has done this job well. But for the many disabled people who have wanted to return to work and could be able to work, the disability program has not worked as well. It has not properly equipped them to return to the workforce. It has not given them the tools they need to move off the disability rolls. In fact, fewer than 1 percent of those who go on the disability rolls--that is currently 4.5 million people--never return to work because the program does not provide an adequate support network or resources for these Americans to move back into the workforce. For these disabled people, the disability program has become a black hole. Once they fall in, they cannot escape. The bill we hope to pass today or tomorrow finally gives these Americans new hope, the ladder they need to climb out of that hole. The Ticket To Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act modernizes the disability program and moves it into the modern age and provides more options for the disabled who want to work. It provides them with a ticket that can be used to help acquire skills to reenter the workforce. Under the old system, these workers had only one option if they wanted to return to work; they had to work through their State vocational rehabilitation programs. This option will still be open to them, but now they will also be able to use their ``ticket'' to go to other provider networks and employers to obtain skills and jobs. In short, the ``ticket'' expands opportunity for training and choices for rehabilitation for the disabled, and gives them the ability to tap into the power of the free market. This legislation also addresses the most pressing need for most of those who want to leave the disability rolls and return to work--the availability of adequate health care. Many of these potential workers continue to require a high degree of medical care even after they return to work. Obtaining this care--and paying for it--is often a high hurdle to cross, especially for those who move back to the workplace in entry and lower-level positions. Under the bill we are dealing with today, we expand continued Medicare coverage for the disabled and also increase Medicaid funding to the States to help them address the problems. All in all, this bill is win-win. It is a winner for the disabled community and a winner for the American taxpayers and all of us who pay Social Security taxes. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that for every 1 percent of disability recipients who return to work, the Social Security disability trust fund saves $3 billion. That is serious money. If this legislation only works partly as well as we expect, it will make a tremendous difference for the future of the trust fund and our ability to look after the neediest Americans. It's been almost 5 years since Congress began looking into problems with the disability program. In 1995, when I was the chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, we began holding hearings on possible changes we could make to Social Security to help the disabled. After those hearings, former Congresswoman Barbara Kenelley and myself wrote reform legislation that passed in the House in 1998 by a vote of 410-1. While my bill died in the Senate last year because Senator Kennedy put a hold on my bill and some shenanigans by the White House, it is at the core of the legislation we are passing today and I am very proud of that. We have worked very hard to make sure the ticket-to-work portion of this reflects the bill that passed the House last year 410- 1. This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. It will truly make a difference for many Americans who need it the most, and I think it will stand as one of the most significant pieces of legislation to pass during this Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I thank Chairman Gramm. Mr. President, this is an historic occasion, and I am very happy to be a part of it. Today we are going to finally, at long last, pass financial modernization legislation that brings the financial industry into the 20th century and prepares it for the 21st century. When I first came to Congress nearly 13 years ago, this was one of the first major issues I worked on. I served on the Banking Committee in the House back then, and in 1988, we passed out of committee a financial modernization bill. But that bill never made it to the House floor. So it has been a long process getting to this point. There have been many times when I did not believe we would ever make it. But I am very happy to see this day come, and I am very proud to be a part of it. Those of us who served on this Conference Committee have labored to bring a good bill to the floor today-- a conference report that knocks down barriers, gives consumers more options and cheaper services, protects the little guys, and provides regulatory relief. We have achieved all these goals in this measure. There has never been a question about the need to modernize our depression-era financial laws. If we expect our financial industries to be able to compete in the world market in the next century, modernization of our laws is essential. I think everyone has recognized that all along. It was simply a question of finding a suitable blueprint for the modernization process that everyone could find acceptable, and I think we accomplished that with this measure. Admittedly, along the way this year, we had some big differences to work out. For instances, I was very happy the Federal Reserve and the Department of Treasury were able to work out a compromise on the Op-sub issue. I believe this compromise was essential to getting an agreement on the final bill and allowing us to finally repeal Glass-Steagall. We also wrestled long and hard on the Community Reinvestment Act provisions. In this bill today we bring much-needed sunshine to the CRA process and ensure that the money which banks are sending to groups for low-income housing development, goes for just that, low-income housing. We also give some much-needed regulatory relief to small banks on CRA. These banks are already involved in their communities. If they did not lend in their neighborhoods, they would not survive. With this provision, small bankers will spend less time doing Federal paper work and more time lending in their neighborhoods, both rural and urban. I would have liked to do more to reduce the CRA burden on small banks but we did the best we could. We were also able to ensure that we protected the small-town insurance salesmen and stockbrokers. We make sure that they have a level playing field and will be able to offer their customers more services at better prices. And we also dealt with a new issue that emerged in recent months--the issue of privacy. I know some of my colleagues believe this bill is inadequate as far as the provisions on financial privacy go. I certainly understand their concerns but this bill does give consumers federal privacy protection that they have not previously enjoyed. Under provisions of this bill, consumers will be able to opt- out of disclosure of their financial information to third parties. This bill does not go as far as some would like,--but it is a start and it does recognize the importance of the privacy issue. Overall, I believe we came to an agreement on a balanced bill that creates a level playing field and enhances competition for the financial industries. It protects the safety and soundness of our financial institutions and gives consumers better products at lower prices. It is crucial that we do pass this measure as we prepare to enter the new millennium. In this new age of the global marketplace our financial firms must be able to compete. This bill will go a long way toward allowing them to compete, but not at the expense of our local bankers, brokers, agents, and customers. I urge my colleagues to vote for it--it is a good bill. Finally, I would like to commend Chairman Gramm and his fine staff for all of their hard work. We certainly would not have this bill without Chairman Gramm's tireless efforts. He and his staff spent countless hours completing this bill which I believe will be passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and will be signed by the President. Chairman Gramm did an outstanding job, and I thank everybody else on the conference committee and in the Senate. I urge support of this bill and its passage today. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I believe strongly in free trade. I believe in the productivity of the American worker. I believe in American ingenuity and technology and I believe that, if we eliminate the barriers, our industry and our workers can compete effectively with anyone in the world. I have always supported fast-track legislation to give the executive branch the freedom to negotiate trade agreements with other nations. But back in 1993, despite my inclination to support free trade, I wrestled long and hard with the facts and the figures and I determined that NAFTA--the North American Free Trade Agreement--was not a good agreement for us. It was a hard vote for me--in 1993--but I ended up voting against NAFTA. I was convinced that it would indeed cost this Nation jobs. Unfortunately, time and the trade statistics have proven me right. NAFTA was a bad agreement. Since the implementation of NAFTA, we have managed to turn a trade surplus with Mexico of $1.7 billion a year into a trade deficit that, this year, will exceed $20 billion. The giant sucking sound has been heard in Kentucky--5,000 jobs from the apparel industry--sucked out of the State and the Nation. Thousands of appliance manufacturing jobs have drifted south to Mexico. At least 7,000 Kentucky jobs are gone. In particular, the apparel and textile industries have been devastated. In the last 56 months--since the implementation of NAFTA, the apparel industry has lost 305,000 jobs, and the textile industry has lost 125,000 jobs. They are just gone, disappeared. Now, we are being asked to expand portions of this agreement to include the other Caribbean and Central American countries--and to provide new trade preferences for the 48 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. Basically, we are being asked to take a failed policy--NAFTA--and expand it dramatically. That makes absolutely no sense at all. I urge my colleagues to vote against this expansion of NAFTA and the guaranteed loss of additional U.S. jobs. The CBI parity portion of this legislation is based on the premise that we need to spur economic growth in the Caribbean and Central America. The same arguments are used in favor of this bill that were used in support of NAFTA. Supporters say that economic growth and investment in our neighbors to the south will benefit us in terms of increased exports and increased domestic employment because of those exports. And that logic is very difficult to dispute--over the long haul. Certainly, healthy economies in the Caribbean and Central American countries would open new export opportunities for U.S. goods and services. Certainly, expanding economies in the area would reduce the pressure of immigration--legal and illegal alike. Certainly we want healthy economies in this area to help strengthen the growth and stability of democracy in our neighborhood. We do need to do everything we can, within reason, to encourage economic growth in the Caribbean. It makes sense. But it doesn't make sense to sacrifice an entire U.S. industry and hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs to do it. And that is what this bill will do. The Caribbean Basin apparel and textile business is already booming. Last year, apparel and textile exports from the Caribbean and Central America to the United States grew 9 percent, a growth rate double that of the U.S. economy. At $8.4 billion in 1998, textile and apparel exports from the Carribean Basin countries to the United States already exceed the $7.5 billion in textiles and apparel exported to our Nation by Mexico. When it comes to helping expand the economies of the Caribbean countries and Central American countries, the American textile and apparel workers have already given at the office--430,000 jobs have been lost to help fuel this exodus. Expanding NAFTA in this way, at this time, will simply reward the companies that have already left the United States and sent their manufacturing facilities to the Carribean Basin because of lower wages. In the process, we stand to lose another 1.2 million jobs in the apparel and textile industry. Ask the people in Campbellsville, Kentucky if that makes sense to them. It doesn't. The African trade portion of this bill doesn't make much more sense. I think that everyone certainly agrees that we need to encourage economic development in Africa. It is in our long-term best interests to establish strong trade linkages with Africa because it is a huge potential market for U.S. goods. And if this bill simply provided incentives for increased manufacturing and production of African products, I would probably not have any problem with it. But this bill doesn't just open the door for increased trade with Africa--it opens, even wider, the door to a flood of Asian products that could further devastate our domestic textile and apparel industry. So, our good intentions would, in all likelihood benefit Asia much more than Africa. The bill creates a huge new incentive for transshipments of Asian goods through Africa. Transshipment is nothing new. Asian manufacturers have been illegally transshipping goods into the United States through Africa for more than 15 years. Customs has estimated that transshipments from Asia have grown from $500 million in 1985 to $2 billion, and possibly as much as $4 billion a year. Africa has been one of the major transshipment routes into this country. This bill, because it lowers tariff duties dramatically, would create an almost irresistible incentive to cheat even more. And ironically that cheating will actually undermine NAFTA and the Caribbean Basin Initiative which include strict anti-fraud provisions that safeguard our domestic producers to some extent. Because it offers lucrative incentives for Asia to transship and no realistic methods to prevent transshipment, billions of dollars of illegal Asian imports will enter the United States duty free and quota free from Africa in direct competition with NAFTA and Caribbean Basin products. And no matter how good U.S. workers are, they can't compete against Asian imports that are subsidized from fiber production on down. The U.S. Customs Service doesn't have the resources to stop illegal transshipment. Local African customs officials don't have an incentive to stop it. Asian manufacturers, who dominate world trade in textiles and apparel are unlikely to invest money in Africa if it is more cost effective to transship through Africa. And that means the Asian manufacturers will either transship the entire garment or they will only do minor assembly work in Africa. Either way, the yarn, the fabric and most, if not all, of the labor will come from Asia. A couple buttons or a zipper here and there might be added in Africa, but this trade bill will benefit Asia much more than Africa and African workers. So, here we have two trade bills wrapped into one. Both are flawed. Both jeopardize domestic industries and domestic workers who have been devastated already. The Caribbean Basin Initiative portion of this bill expands NAFTA-- which has already been costing us thousands--hundreds of thousands of jobs--many of them from my home State of Kentucky. It rewards companies which have already moved their jobs from the United States to the Caribbean and for what purpose?--to expand growth in an industry which is already growing very nicely in those Caribbean nations. More U.S. jobs will be lost as a result. The African trade provisions in this bill are designed to increase investment and expand the manufacturing base in Africa. But in the absence of strong, realistic restrictions on transshipment of Asian manufactured products, this bill would, in all likelihood, benefit Asia more than Africa. And it would further devastate the apparel and textile industries in our own country. I still believe in fair trade. But there is nothing fair about this bill for the U.S. apparel and textile industries. We keep talking about creating a level playing field when it comes to fair trade. But this bill pulls the field right out from under U.S. industries which have already had an uphill fight just to stay alive. It doesn't make any sense. And I urge my colleagues to vote against it. NAFTA should have taught us a lesson.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, it boggles the mind to think that we are back here again, trying to convince the President that there is no place in this nation for partial-birth abortions. It is hard to believe that we are having to go through this exercise again because this particular procedure is so clearly barbaric. It is such a clear case or genocide. In two Congresses now--during both of which is served in the House of Representatives--Congress has passed a ban of this barbaric procedure only to see the President veto that ban and allow the killing to continue. In both of these Congresses, the House of Representatives voted to override the President's veto--but this body did not. Hopefully, we can change that. If not today--then maybe tomorrow or the next day--the next month--or the next year--because this is such a clear case of human justice--moral justice--and plain old humanity--we cannot ever give up until partial-birth abortions are banned across the land. It is really hard to believe that we have to go through this exercise every Congress because nobody--with a straight face and clear conscience--can stand up and defend this procedure. The only way anyone can justify it is to say that--hey, it doesn't matter--because not that many partial birth abortion are actually performed. They say that partial birth abortions are only utilized in cases when the mother's life is in jeopardy. And we know this just isn't true. We know that some of the most ardent and visible defenders of abortion have actually lied about the numbers. It's not just a few hundred a year--it is thousands. But the numbers really shouldn't make any difference. If it is wrong and inhumane we should ban it--whether it affects one or one million. But misleading facts about the numbers--trying to downplay the prevalence and the frequency of the procedure--are no justification at all. This bill does not ignore the health needs of women. It clearly makes an exception when the life of the mother is jeopardy. This bill clearly says that the ban on partial-birth abortions does not apply when such a procedure is considered necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness or injury. So, even though many medical experts insist that there is never any medical justification for partial-birth abortion, this bill permits it if the mother's life in jeopardy. No one can deny that partial-birth abortion is cruel. No one can deny that it is patently inhumane. No one can deny that it is grotesque. I urge my colleagues to support this bill--support this ban. It is simply a matter of respect for human life.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Helms. Mr. President, this whole debate reminds me of what the great philosopher Yogi Berra once said: It is like ``deja vu all over again.'' I thought we pretty well settled this argument years ago--back in the 1970s and the 1980s--when the idea of unilateral disarmament through a nuclear freeze was proposed as the only way to end the nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia. We rejected the nuclear freeze concept. We put national security first. We won the cold war, not through unilateral disarmament and symbolic gestures but through strength, and we defeated the evil empire. The world is safer and we have been able to substantially reduce the number of nuclear warheads and the threat of nuclear conflict. So it is difficult to understand why this argument is back before the Senate today. It is difficult to understand why a U.S. President is back before us asking us to ratify an agreement which would tie this Nation's hands behind its back and jeopardize our national security. None of us support nuclear war. We are all against nuclear proliferation. But agreeing to forego all future testing of nuclear weapons is not the way to get there. It is a matter of national security, of safety, and of common sense. Because we refused to accept the siren call of the nuclear freeze movement in the 1970s, we won the cold war, and we have subsequently been able to reduce our arsenal of nuclear warheads from 12,000 to 6,000 under the START II treaty. The number is expected to be reduced further to 3,000 warheads by the year 2003. But despite these reductions and this progress, the United States must maintain a reliable nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. Although the cold war is over, significant threats to our country still exist. At present, our nuclear capability provides us a deterrent that is critical to our Nation and is relied on as a safety umbrella by most countries around the world. As long as our national security and our own nuclear deterrent rely on the nuclear capability, we must be able to periodically test our existing weapons as necessary to ensure their reliability and their safety. Reliability is essential. If our nuclear weapons are not reliable, they are not much of a credible deterrent, and the nuclear umbrella that we and our allies count on for our mutual defense will have gaping holes in it. We have to face reality. Our nuclear stockpile is aging. Our nuclear inventory is older than it has ever been, and nuclear materials and components degrade in unpredictable ways--in some cases causing the weapons to fail. Without testing, those potential problems will go undetected. Upgrades will not be possible. Reliability will suffer. Safety is also essential. A permanent ban on testing would jeopardize the safety of our nuclear arsenal by preventing us from integrating the most modern advanced safety measures into our weapons. Even now our nuclear arsenal is not as safe as we can make it. Of the nine weapons systems currently on hand, only one employs all of the most modern and secure measures available. Safety modifications of this kind would require testing to make sure they worked as intended. Sure, advocates of this treaty argue there are some other measures of testing a weapon--safety and reliability. The Clinton administration has proposed an ambitious program known as the Stockpile Stewardship Program which would use computer modeling and simulations to detect reliability and safety. However, many of the components of this system are unbuilt and untested. The National Ignition Facility, which is the centerpiece of this program, is not scheduled to be completed until the year 2003. There are already reports that it is years behind schedule. It would be foolhardy to entrust our nuclear security to an unproven program which probably won't even be fully operational by the year 2010. Reliability and safety: There must be certainty; at this point only live testing provides that kind of certainty. This treaty is based on a very noble, well-intentioned goal. There is no question that if the Senate were to ratify this treaty, it would be a grand symbolic gesture, but noble goals and symbolic gestures are no substitute for good policy and hard reality. I have already talked about a couple of reasons why this treaty is not good policy--safety and reliability. But there are a couple of other reasons this treaty fails the hard-reality test, as well: Verification and enforcement. The hard reality is that the United States usually tries to live up to the agreements it signs. If we ratify this treaty, we will live by it; we have no guarantee other nations will be so inclined to follow the letter of the law. Under this treaty, verification would be very difficult and enforcement would be impossible. It has no teeth. It is difficult now to detect nuclear tests with any confidence, and the verification monitoring provisions in this treaty don't add to that confidence level at all. Yes, we could request onsite inspections if we thought someone had been cheating, but that request would have to be approved by a supermajority in the 51-member executive council. In addition, each country under the treaty has the right to declare 50-square-kilometer areas off limits to any inspection. Even if we did catch a cheater, the treaty has almost no teeth-- possible trade sanctions. That's it, possible trade sanctions. And we know how difficult it is to maintain multilateral trade sanctions against Iraq, a country that blatantly invaded and looted a neighboring country and which consistently defies international inspection teams. No one can believe we would be more effective at enforcing sanctions against more responsible nations of greater commercial importance such as India and Pakistan. There are no teeth. That brings us back to the hard reality. Would we obey the treaty? Yes, we would obey the treaty because that is the way we are. And others would obey the treaty if it suited their whims of the moment. The hard reality is if we ratify this treaty, we sacrifice our national security, jeopardize the safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal. And what do we get in return? A noble, symbolic gesture. Nothing more. It is not worth it. I urge my colleagues to vote no. Unilateral disarmament was a bad idea in the 1970s and 1980s; it is a bad idea for the 21st century. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I voted yesterday to oppose the nominations of Ronnie White to serve as District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, and Raymond C. Fisher to sit on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As a newly elected member of the Senate, I am acutely aware of our obligation to confirm judges to sit on the Federal courts who will enforce the law without fear or favor. But, after carefully considering Judge White's record, I am compelled to vote ``no.'' I believe that he has evidenced bias against the death penalty from his seat on the Missouri Supreme Court, even though it is the law in that State. He has voted against the death penalty more than any other judge on that panel, and I am afraid that he would use a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench to push the law in a procriminal direction rather than deferring interpreting the law as written and adhering to the legislative will of the people. Although Judge Fisher has been recognized as ``thoughtful liberal,'' I cannot in good conscience vote to appoint him to serve a lifetime appointment to the Ninth Circuit Court. Over the last decade, the Ninth Circuit has been a fertile breeding ground for liberal judges to advance their activist agenda--a fact evidenced by the Supreme Court's consistent reversal of cases referred to them from the Ninth Circuit-- and I am afraid that Judge Fisher would continue this disturbing trend. Probably more than any other circuit in the America, the views of the Ninth Circuit are unquestionably out of alignment with mainstream America, and I believe the panel badly needs a sense of judicial balance. I do not believe that Judge Fisher would have helped to provide that balance.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. In 1991, the Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County entered into a letter of intent (LOI) with the Federal Aviation Administration for funding from the Airport Improvement Program for an ambitious expansion of the Louisville Airport. The LOI was for $126 million. When the new east runway was completed in 1995 and ready for operation, Louisville was informed that no funds were available in the FAA Facilities and Equipment Account (F&E) to provide an Instrument Landing System (ILS), thus rendering the new runway inoperative. FAA advised Louisville that if they procured the ILS, the FAA would later reimburse them for the expenditure of $5.68 million for the system.