Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. We currently have a confusing situation where the FAA has informed Louisville that $4.2 million in funds drawn down against the LOI in 1998 were for reimbursement for the ILS.

Mr BUNNING

Mr BUNNING. Yes, indeed. That is precisely the purpose of the language. The $4.2 million the FAA designated as reimbursement is money the Louisville Airport would have received under the $126 million LOI anyway. The provision in the legislation simply directs the FAA to amend the existing LOI with the Regional Airport Authority to increase it by $5.68 million, thus reimbursing Louisville the total cost of the ILS.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I want to express my hope that Senators McCain and Gorton will work to include language in the conference report accompanying S. 82, which is of great importance to the Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County, KY. I would like to provide a brief explanation of the need for this provision and what it is intended to accomplish.

Mr. BUNNING. That is correct.

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Senators for their assistance. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to commend a fellow Kentuckian and my friend, William B. Greenwood of Central City, who is completing his highly successful term as president of the Independent Insurance Agents of America (IIAA)--the nation's largest insurance association--later this month in Las Vegas. Bill is president of C.A. Lawton Insurance, an independent insurance agency in Central City. Bill's career as an independent insurance agent has been marked with outstanding contribution and dedication to his clients, community, IIAA, the Independent Insurance Agents of Kentucky, and his independent agent colleagues. Bill began his service to his industry colleagues with the Independent Insurance Agents of Kentucky. He served as president of the State association in 1983, and was named its Insuror of the Year in 1986. He was Kentucky's representative to IIAA's national board of State directors for seven years beginning in 1985. Bill also was very active with IIAA activities before moving into the organization's leadership structure. He was chairman of its communications and membership committees as well as chairman of the future one communications task force. Bill was elected to IIAA's executive committee in 1992 as an at-large member. Since that time, he has exhibited a spirit of tireless dedication to and genuine concern for his 300,000 independent agent colleagues around the country. In addition to his outstanding work with IIAA and the Kentucky association, Bill also is involved with numerous Central City-area community activities. He is a past recipient of the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce Volunteer of the Year Award. He is on the boards of directors for the Leadership Kentucky Foundation, Kentucky Audubon Council Boy Scouts of America, and Central City, Main Street, Inc. In the past, Bill served on the board of directors of the Muhlenberg Community Theatre, the Everly Brothers Foundation, and the Central City Main Street and Redy Downtown Development Corporation. Also, Bill is past president of the Central City Chamber of Commerce and the Central City Lions Club. I laud Bill for leading the Independent Insurance Agents of America with distinction and strong leadership over the past year. Even though Bill will step aside as IIAA president soon, he will remain actively involved with the association because he is a concerned leader and wants to continue helping his colleagues build for the new millennium.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in strong support on conference report on the Taxpayers Refund and Relief Act of 1999 and urge my colleaguess to support it. I congratulate Senator Roth and his staff on getting such a great bill to the floor of the Senate. I urge the President of the United States to reconsider his threat to veto it. It is a good bill. It is responsible in its timing. It is responsible in its provisions. And it is definitely responsible to let the American taxpayers keep a little more of their own money. On the basis of fact, it is difficult to dispute the fairness or the timing for a tax cut in general. Federal tax rates are at an all-time, peace-time high, consuming more than 20.6 percent of the Nation's economic output. That is a higher tax rate than any year except 1944 at the height of World War II when Federal taxes consumed 20.9 percent of the gross domestic product. At the same time, we are anticipating record budget surpluses. The economists tell us that over the next 10 years, the Federal Government will take in nearly $3 trillion more than it needs. Even if we set aside $1.9 trillion of that surplus to safeguard Social Security and pay down the public debt, the Federal Government will still have $1 trillion more than it needs over the next 10 years. It is hard to imagine a more opportune or reasonable time to cut taxes. Tax rates are at record highs--budget surpluses are at record highs. What more do you need? In a similar vein, it is difficult to dispute any of the major provisions in this bill on the basis of fairness. It does a lot of good things. It reduces each of the personal income tax rates, which currently range from 15 percent to 39.6 percent by 1 percentage point so that low- and moderate-income taxpayers receive a larger real cut than those in higher income brackets. It reduces the capital gains tax moderately and indexes capital gains to account for inflation. It encourages savings by increasing IRA contribution limits from $2,000 to $5,000. It would eliminate the odious death tax which destroys family businesses and farms. Point by point, it is difficult to portray any of these provisions as radical or unfair. It is also difficult to question the fairness of the bill's provisions which try to eliminate the marriage penalty that exists under current tax law and which forces 20 million married couples to pay about $1,400 a year more in taxes than unmarried couples. In an effort to eliminate this inequity, the Taxpayer Refund Act increases the standard deduction and raises the upper limit of the 14- percent bracket for married couples. The individual provisions in the tax cut bill are reasonable and fair. Still, the President insists that a $792 billion tax cut is irresponsible and reckless. Even though our Republican plan sets aside $1.9 trillion to secure Social Security and pay down the public debt-- even though it reserves another $277 billion to pay for Medicare reform or other essential services--even though the tax cuts are phased in slowly over 10 years, the President claims it is reckless and irresponsible. It is easy to understand why. He wants to spend more. He says cutting taxes $792 billion is reckless but he didn't have any qualms about proposing 81 new spending programs that would cost $1.033 trillion in his budget proposal this year. He clearly believes that the money belongs to the Federal Government--not the taxpayers. And he clearly plans to find ways to spend that surplus if given the chance. That is the big question that faces the Nation right now. Whose money is it and is it more responsible to give some of it back to the taxpayers than it is to spend it? I have heard a lot about Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Allen Greenspan's recent testimony before a Senate Committee on which I serve and, admittedly, he was not overly enthusiastic about cutting taxes right now. He would prefer that we use all the budget surplus to pay down the debt. But, he also made it clear that the worst thing we could do is to spend the surplus on new programs. He made it clear that cutting taxes would be preferable to expanding Federal spending. Our tax bill already pays down the debt more than the President's plan and if we don't cut taxes now, make no mistake about it, the President will find plenty of ways to spend the rest of that surplus. This bill simply says that when tax rates are at record highs and the Government has more money than it needs to protect Social Security and Medicare and to pay down the debt, the responsible thing to do is to give some of that money back to the people who pay the taxes. There is nothing reckless about the Republican tax cut. It protects Social Security and Medicare. It reduces the debt more than the President's plan. It reserves several hundred billion to pay for essential services or to pay the debt down even more. The timing is right. The provisions are fair. It simply allows the Nation's taxpayers to keep a little more of their own money. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, my home state, the great Commonwealth of Kentucky is known throughout the world for many fine things--fast horses, bluegrass countryside, the best burley tobacco in the world and winning basketball teams. And of course, Kentucky is also known as the home of fine Bourbon whiskey. Bourbon is interwoven through the history, heritage and economy of our Commonwealth. First developed in 1797 by an early settler from Virginia named Elijah Pepper who settled in Versailles, Kentucky and built a still behind the Woodford County Courthouse, Bourbon is a distinctively Kentucky product that still plays an important role in our state's economy. For the past nineteen years, the interests of this deeply rooted Kentucky industry have been served very well by a gentleman with no Kentucky roots of his own: a man from the snowy plains of Minnestoa-- Frederick A. Meister. For the past nineteen years, Fred Meister has served as President and CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS). He is planning to retire soon and I wanted to take this opportunity to thank him, on the behalf of the many Kentuckians who are employed by the distillery industry throughout our Commonwealth for a job well done. While the leadership of many Washington trade associations seems to come and go, Fred's tenure at DISCUS stands out as a distinguished exception. For almost two decades, the millions of Americans who choose to drink in moderation could not have had a more zealous advocate. At the same time, Fred and DISCUS have wisely taken a hard line against drunk driving and other forms of reckless drinking. Whether the issue has been taxes, free trade or the First Amendment freedom of distillers to advertise their products on television and radio, Fred has been there making a persuasive case for the spirit industry's legitimate commercial interests. No one has fought harder or more effectively on these issues than Fred Meister. At the same time, Fred and DISCUS long ago recognized that the beverage alcohol industry mut do its part to stop drunk driving and other forms of reckless drinking. Under Fred's leadership, the industry has made great progress in this regard. Under his leadership, DISCUS has successfully developed model legislation, the Drunk Driving Prevention Act, which has encouraged many states to pass life saving laws preventing drunk driving, including a ban on open containers and ``zero tolerance'' for underage consumption. Fred was among the first to call for the establishment of the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. Subsequently, he served with distinction on this panel. Under Fred's leadership, DISCUS has maintained and enforced a strict Code of Good Practice governing the advertising and marketing of distilled spirits. In 1991, the majority of the DISCUS companies made a multi-million dollar investment to form an organization known as the Century Council which went on to develop a number of life saving programs aimed at the problems of underage drinking, drunk driving and, most recently, college binge drinking. As Fred Meister steps down from the leadership at the Distilled Spirits Council, he leaves behind him a proud and positive legacy and he leaves behind an industry that is both commercially strong and socially responsible. I know that I can safely speak on the behalf of the thousands of Kentuckians who earn their living in the distilling industry when I say ``Congratulations and thank You'' to Fred Meister for a job well done.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Taxpayer Refund Act and urge my colleagues to vote for it. I actually prefer the tax bill that was considered and approved in the House of Representatives and I support the conservative substitute tax bill that was offered earlier today. I prefer these alternatives because they cut taxes across the Board which I think is appropriate. They reduce the marriage penalty more adequately which I think is essential. They make further reductions in the capital gains tax which I think is good for the economy. They totally phase out the death tax instead of just reducing it which I think is just a matter of fairness. However, even though I think that the Taxpayer Refund Act could be improved--and I hope that it is improved during conference--it is vitally important that we keep the process moving and send a tax cut bill to conference. During this debate, we've seen a great many charts and graphs outlining all the figures and projections under the Sun. It's almost like watching a Ross Perot commercial. But when we get to the bottom line in this debate, we aren't talking about figures and projections at all. We are talking about two different philosophies of government. We are talking about two different philosophies of who the money really belongs to. Does the money that is generated by the income tax and the payroll tax belong to the people--or does it belong to the Federal Government. That's the argument today. And the differences here are very clear cut and distinct. The President and his supporters believe that the money paid into the Federal treasury belongs to the Government. We are told that over the next 10 years we will have $1.1 trillion more than we need in general revenues to fund the Federal Government. A trillion dollars is a lot of money. But the President and his supporters say that all that money belongs to the Government and that we should hold onto it just in case Congress or the President can find new ways to spend it. I can guarantee that if we let the Government hold onto that money-- somebody will find a way to spend it. On the other side of the coin, Republicans say that if taxes are bringing in more money than we need to run the Government, we should give it back to the people so they can determine how to spend it. That's what this debate is all about. Whose money is it? The President and the Democrat leadership say that tax cuts are irresponsible and risky--that they would jeopardize Social Security, Medicare and essential government services. But our budget and our tax bill and our Social Security lockbox proposal which the Democrats here in the Senate keep rejecting all guarantee that the Government cannot touch the Social Security surpluses over the next 10 years. The Republican proposals all clearly protect Social Security--we lock up that money so it can't be spent--so that it reduces the public debt. But the Democrats in this body keep voting against the lock box which would guarantee that Social Security surpluses cannot be spend. So, it is not the Republican tax bill that threatens Social Security. It is Democrat reluctance to make a binding commitment not to spend Social Security surpluses. Yes, something needs to be done to strengthen and protect Medicae-- but it is not the Republican tax bill which threatens this important program. Medicare needs systemic reform--we all know that--and it was the President--not the Republicans or the Republican tax bill--who killed the bipartisan commission recommendations which were designed to give us a starting point for real Medicare reform. So, no, this debate is not about Social Security--it is not about Medicare. It is about who the money belongs to. I believe that it belongs to the working Americans who pay the freight. When the projections tell us that we are going to take in over a trillion dollars more than we need, it means that the taxpayers are paying too much and we should give it back. It's that simple. That's what this debate is all about. We have an opportunity today to return some tax money to the taxpayers of this Nation. It is a matter of fairness--it is a matter of honesty--and it is a simple matter of respect. We can protect Social Security and Medicare and we can reduce the public debt and, yes, we can cut taxes at the same time. And we should cut taxes--because, Mr. President, I'm one of those who believe that the money belongs to the people--not the Government.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, our national laboratories have become revolving doors. On the way in, you have billions of dollars from the taxpayers to research and develop the most sophisticated weapons in the world, and on the way out you have all the plans and information any country needs to build a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, the doors to our labs are still open. While the Department of Energy has made some cosmetic changes in their security procedures, we are still stuck with the same bureaucratic mess that created this problem. There is no accountability. Not one person has stood up and said, ``the buck stops here.''--Not the lab directors--not any of the former Secretaries of Energy--not even the President has taken any responsibility for what occurred at Los Alamos Laboratory. It is clear that our nuclear weapons programs are in desperate need of accountability, leadership, and supervision. The amendment we are debating today will provide these essential ingredients. Mr. President, the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment, creates a new agency for nuclear stewardship, which will provide clear lines of authority and responsibility within the Department of Energy. It will be managed by an administrator who will be directly responsible for all nuclear weapons production. Finally, someone will be able to say, ``the buck stops here.'' In addition, the amendment will codify an Office of Counterintelligence in the Department of Energy. The Director of this Office will have the power to create preventative programs to make sure this kind of espionage does not occur again. The administration has proposed a number of band-aid type reforms, but none of them get to the heart of the problem. There are too many tangled lines of authority within the Department of Energy, and no one wants to take responsibility. According to the Cox report, ``the PRC's theft of nuclear secrets from our National Weapons Laboratories enabled the PRC to design, develop, and successfully test modern strategic nuclear weapons sooner than would otherwise have been possible.'' Since the Chinese, who sell weapons around the world have these secrets, we can only ask who else may have this information. Iran? Iraq? Syria? North Korea? While it is scary to think about who may have access to our nuclear secrets, it is even more frightening to think that this kind of espionage could still be going on. We need the clear lines of authority and leadership that would be established by the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment, to close the revolving door. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for cloture and support this important amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING. I have finished. I thank the Senator. I have completed my statement.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I rise in opposition to the Kennedy health care bill and in support of the Republican alternative--the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus. Mr. President, when the rhetoric starts heating up, it is often difficult to tell exactly what is going on. However, it has been my experience that quite frequently, the best way to determine where people are headed is to look at where they have been. You can often tell where people are going if you look back to where they are coming from. And, quite honestly, I get a little nervous when I hear people talking about providing a bill of rights for patients that sounds very enticing. Without looking into the facts, I get a little nervous because I know where the supporters of the Kennedy bill have been. I know where the President has been. We know where they are coming from on health care. Where are they coming from? Well, back in 1994, these same people were trying to sell us on Clinton Care--the President's misguided proposal which would have taken away a patient choice and freedom and which would have put the Federal Government in charge of the Nation's entire health care system. Fortunately, that proposal was rejected by Congress and the American people. It failed because it was recognized for what it really was--a big government proposal that would have moved us closer to single- payor, government-run health care system. And the American people made it clear back in 1994 they simply didn't have a great deal of confidence that letting the Federal Government run health care would be any kind of improvement. Now, the debate has changed. We are talking about ``expanding patients' rights.'' And who can be against that? But if you look at the people who are talking the loudest about these new rights, you will see the very same folks who supported Clinton Care--and who have consistently supported single payer, socialization of medicine all along. And that should concern everyone. Have they changed their spots? I don't think so. Be that as it may, even if you ignore the past and simply accept the Kennedy bill as a stand-alone measure that has nothing to do with past congressional efforts to put the Government in charge of health care, there are some very good reasons to oppose it. And there are some equally strong reasons to support the Republican alternative. The reasons to oppose the Kennedy bill are simple. It will increase health care costs. It will increase the number of people who have no health insurance coverage dramatically. And it will seriously threaten our existing system of voluntary employer provided health care insurance. It promises new ``patient rights'' which sound appealing at first blush, but when you look at it a little closer you discover that the costs are awfully high and the only ones who really benefit from those new rights are the lawyers and the bureaucrats. I would like to talk about a couple of the problems that I see with the Kennedy bill and then point out a couple of the reasons that the Republican alternative is better. First is the scope of the Kennedy bill--who will be affected. Today, much of the health care is regulated under the Federal ERISA statute-- the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Today 42 million Americans get health care insurance through their employer as part of a plan that is directly governed by ERISA. But, an even larger number--84 million--get their insurance through health plans that ERISA leaves to State regulation. Under the Kennedy bill, this would change. The scope of the Kennedy bill is so broad that the States would be cut out of health care regulation. Uncle Sam would be in the driver's seat. That's not what we want. One of the reasons the Clinton health bill failed was because Americans were suspicious of the Federal Government making health care decisions. Many of us believe these decisions need to be kept as far from Washington as possible. The States have a role to play. Mr. President, even in Kentucky where our States general assembly has made some mistakes with health care recently, we want to keep working before turning everything over to Uncle Same. So, the scope of this bill is troubling. But even more troubling is the cost of the Kennedy bill. That is what health insurance is all about in the first place--the cost of health care. And cost is certainly the one single health care issue that Kentuckians talk the most to me about. The cost of insurance premiums, prescription drug prices, medical equipment. People are worried about their bottom lines. They are worried about how much is going to come out of their pockets. They want to know if they are going to be able to continue to afford to take care of themselves and their families. For the folks who are worried about costs, the Kennedy bill is definitely the wrong prescription because it will increase costs, it will raise prices and it will swell the number of uninsured American families. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that the Kennedy bill would raise health insurance premiums 6.1 percent above inflation over the next three years. In Kentucky this translates into $190 in higher insurance premiums that families would have to pay each year. The worst part of these higher costs is that they mean fewer Americans will be able to afford health insurance. CBO estimates the Kennedy bill will cost 1.4 million Americans their health insurance. As many as 30,000 Kentuckians could lose their insurance coverage because of the higher costs imposed by the Kennedy bill. According to at least one estimate, all of the new regulations and mandates in the Kennedy bill will cost almost $60 billion. Somebody is going to pay those costs. Insurers are going to pass their costs along to the employers. And the employers will have to make a decision on whether to pass those increases along to their employees. And some of them may decide to drop the health care benefits they currently offer to their employees altogether. So, that's the bottom line. the Kennedy bill of rights will mean that fewer people have health insurance--and those who still have it, will pay a lot more for it. On the other hand, the GOP plan addresses health care quality without significantly raising costs. It would increase costs less than 1 percent. That's a mighty big difference for the 1.4 million Americans who would be priced out of the market by the Kennedy bill, and for the millions of other Americans who would have to pay more out of their pockets for higher premiums. A new bill of rights doesn't help you much if you lose your insurance coverage because you or your employer can't afford the premiums. Our bill doesn't drive up costs, and it won't cause more Americans to lose their coverage because it doesn't have all of the new mandates and new regulations that the Kennedy bill does. In fact, the Republican alternative actually includes provisions to help expand the availability of health insurance coverage and to help reduce the costs of insurance. Our bill makes health insurance premiums 100 percent deductible immediately. That makes health insurance more affordable for 125,000 Kentuckians and millions more across the country who are self-employed. The Republican bill also would lift the cap on the number of medical savings accounts that can be set up. Currently there is a national limit of 750,000. Our bill would allow every American who wants to set up a medical savings account the opportunity to do so. MSAs might not be the right thing for everyone, but they make sense for a lot of families and they can really cut costs for many of them. Our bill also improves on the existing ``flex accounts'' that many employees use to get health insurance coverage through cafeteria plans. Right now, many employees can use flex accounts to help cut medical costs and save money. Our bill would give employees even more flexibility to shift their coverage from one insurer to another and to make sure they can continue to see their own doctor. Our bill contains these provisions to help reduce the costs of health care, and to expand health insurance coverage. The Kennedy bill includes none of them. Over 40 million Americans have no health insurance coverage at all. The last thing we should do here in the Senate is pass legislation that is just going to make that number rise. But that is what will happen if we pass the Kennedy bill. The supporters of this legislation claim that they want to give more rights to patients, that they want to protect Americans from the HMOs and the big insurance companies. But, instead, their bill is an empty promise that would actually give Americans fewer rights. You can't have patient rights to fight your insurer if you can't even afford to buy insurance in the first place. Imposing more regulations and more requirements on employers and insurers might have a gut appeal, but in the end it's not going to fix anything. It's only a placebo--a sugar pill--that turns out just to be an empty promise that won't cure this patient. The next issue I want to address has to do with liability and lawsuits. Everybody has heard the horror stories and a lot of Americans are becoming more and more worried that they are not going to be able to get the care they need because their insurance company refuses to pay for the treatment their doctor recommends. When that happens, the question for patients becomes--what do you do if your insurer disagrees with your doctor? The Kennedy bill's answer to this question is simple--it says sue your HMO or your employer. Sue your insurance company. Go to court and let the lawyers fight it out about your health care. Under current law, patients can already sue their HMO in Federal court, and many of them are doing this. But, the Kennedy bill goes a step further and sets up a litigation lottery by lifting the Federal preemption and making it easier for patients to sue in State courts too. The bill's supporters make a big deal out of liability and say that lawsuits are the best way to hold HMOs and employers accountable for decisions. And at first, suing your HMO--the big bad insurance company--might sound like a good idea, a sort of rough justice. But I don't think anyone really believes that getting lawyers involved and going to court is the best way to obtain better medical care. If your insurance company denies you coverage for a specific problem or a specific treatment, and you need medical care quickly, suing is not a very effective answer. And I don't see how suing an employer about your health plan is going to help make things better. It's just going to make it more expensive, and give employers an incentive not to offer health care to their employees. If you do sue under the Kennedy bill, there is no telling how long you are going to be in court, even if you can afford to pay a lawyer to take the case. And going to court to get a judge to rule on medical decisions isn't going to help a patient get help any more faster. More lawsuits are only going to clog up the courts and increase legal bills, and in the end that is just going to drive up health care cost. According to the General Accounting Office, it takes 33 months-- almost three years--to resolve the average medical malpractice claim. Some take much longer, and most patients can't wait that long for medical care. Everyone knows that there are too many lawsuits in America. We hear it all the time. Most of the time in Congress, we are debating changes to the liability rules to cut down on litigation, to keep matters out of the courts. For instance, we just passed the Y2K bill to give businesses and high tech firms more incentives to fix problems before they occur. That's what we should do with health care. It just doesn't make sense to say we are going to improve health care by filing more suits in our courts. Making it easier to sue insurance companies or employers is a knee-jerk, feel-good reaction that isn't going to help anybody get medical care any faster. On the other hand, the Republican bill says that if you are a patient and you think you're not getting a fair shake from your insurer, you can immediately appeal for a speedy internal review of the case. No lawyers, no courtrooms, no legal games. And, after that review, if you think you still aren't being treated fairly, you can demand a quick and timely independent review by outside experts. The Kennedy bill claims to have external reviews too. But the bill's primary focus is on making it easier to sue, and that means the primary arena for external reviews is going to be the courts. The bottom line, Mr. President, patients already can sue their HMOs in Federal court. They have that right today. But instead of encouraging quick resolutions of disputes, the Kennedy bill encourages even more lawsuits in State courts. This will only shift scarce resources from the operating room to the courtroom, and that's the last thing we need. You can't sue yourself healthy. In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to tell my colleagues about what happened in Kentucky when our State adopted a health care bill that increased regulations, took away patients' freedoms and injected the government further into medical care. It's a living example of what could happen is we passed the Kennedy bill. a couple years ago our general assembly passed a Clinton-lite health care bill. Back then we heard a lot of the same arguments that we do now about the need for more regulations and more government involvement in health care. The proponents argued that the government had to step in to protect patients from insurers and to hold the line on costs. Well guess what happened in Kentucky? We passed a big government health plan with all sorts of new mandates on insurers. The legislation was designed to protect patients, and give them more rights by the power of government intervention. What happened was predictable. The insurance companies fled Kentucky in droves. For a while there were only two insurers who would underwrite individual health plans in our State--Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and State Government. That's it. Everyone else left us high and dry. The number of uninsured Kentuckians rose. Costs increased. Medical care became more expensive and harder to get. Sicne then, our State legislature has been backtracking and paring back those regulations and mandates. And guess what. Insurance is becoming more available again and prices have stabilized. That's the sort of situation we are looking at if the Kennedy plan passes. More regulation, more government in your personal life, higher costs, and worse health care. It happened in Kentucky, and it can happen in the rest of the country if we pass the Kennedy bill. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kennedy bill. It's the wrong prescription for America. We know that more regulation and more government aren't the answer, but we have to keep fighting this battle. It wasn't the answer in the Clinton health bill, it wasn't the answer when we passed health care reform in Kentucky, and it's not the answer today. If you want higher medical costs, if you want more uninsured Americans, if you want more government rules and fewer choices for individuals, then support the Kennedy bill. But, Mr. President, that's not what we really need. We need more affordable, more available, health insurance. We need a reliable, fast, and fair system of reviews to keep insurance companies honest but we don't need a flood of lawsuits. That is what the Republican bill offers.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenburg amendment. We all want to do what we can to fight underage drinking. At first glance this amendment might look like a good idea. Putting the office of national drug control policy and the drug czar on the case sounds like we are really taking action in the fight against underage drinking. I believe that this amendment would actually hurt both the fight against underage drinking as well as our Nation's struggle with illegal drugs. First of all, we're not even sure if the drug czar, General McCaffrey, really wants this amendment. We are hearing rumblings that the administration is against it, but no one seems to know for sure. Until we know, it doesn't make sense to pass the amendment. If General McCaffrey, the man the President has asked to lead the charge in our anti-drug efforts, isn't sure about it, I think we need to be very careful. In addition, we know that the bipartisan coalition for a drug-free America--headed up by Bill Bennett and Mario Cuomo--the group that coordinates efforts with the drug czar and produces most of the Government's antidrug ads, does not support this amendment. Bill Bennett and Mario Cuomo don't agree on much, and when they do we should take notice and listen. Second, passing the amendment and adding underage drinking to the problems the drug czar has to tackle will just distract him from his principal focus--as Senator Dorgan said--the war on illegal drugs. As Senator Dorgan, the ranking member on the subcommittee, pointed out last night, the drug czar's resources are already stretched to the limit. Adding underage drinking to the drug czar's portfolio would only stretch his resources even further, and force him to take on another tough fight. I don't think that's what we want. In fact, we know the Federal Government is already spending hundreds of millions of dollars through the various agencies to fight underage drinking, and the evidence shows we are making progress. Over the past 10 years, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration reports that excessive drinking by underage kids has dropped significantly. The Centers for Disease Control agrees. They report that underage drinking has dropped by more than 50 percent over the past two decades. A study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse on drinking among high school students reports similar progress. Unfortunately, the evidence from the war on drugs is not as good. Over the past 5 years, the Department of Health and Human Services reports that illegal drug use has increased for high school kids. We are turning the tide against underage drinking. What now is the compelling reason to involve the drug czar's office? He already has his hands full with the war on illegal drugs. As I said earlier, it's an idea that sounds good at first, but I don't think anyone has laid out a compelling justification for it. Mr. President, I applaud Senator Lautenberg for his fight against underage drinking. It is a fight, as is the war on illegal drugs, that we have to win. But I think he has taken the wrong approach on this amendment. It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Let's keep fighting underage drinking with the tools we now have in place. They are working. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Lautenberg amendment. I yield back my time. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 331, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. This is the most far-reaching Social Security disability bill to come before the Senate in a generation, and it's going to give thousands of men and women who are trapped in the disability program the tools they need to return to work. While it's not a perfect bill, it's still a significant step forward. Right now there are over 4\1/2\ million Americans on disability. Four and a half million, Mr. President. And of this group, less than one- half of 1 percent will return to work. Many of these folks have permanent conditions and need assistance. But, many of these people want to return to work, and can return to work. For them, the disability program has become a black hole that swallows everyone who falls in. With proper training and rehabilitation, many of these people could work. But the disability system is not working for them. Because of problems with the current program, they face too many hurdles, too many disincentives, in trying to return to the workforce. That is a tragedy. Some of us have been fighting for a long time to improve the Social Security Disability Program. When I chaired the House Social Security subcommittee, we held numerous hearings on disability. And we learned there are indeed many, many disabled who want to return to work, and can work. But they're afraid to try. They're afraid to try because returning to work often means losing their health care coverage. Many other disabled workers could return to their jobs if they had the proper training. But because of backlogs and problems in the current vocational rehabilitation system, they have not been able to get the assistance they need. The bill before us today will change things for the better. It removes barriers that discourage the disabled from returning to work. It helps harness the power of the private sector and competition to help provide training for the disabled. And it extends basic health care coverage to help them make the difficult transition back to work. It represents a fundamental, revolutionary change for the disabled community. As an added benefit, this legislation will have money for Social Security--big money. For every 1% of the total number of disabled who return to work, we save $3 billion for Social Security. The legislation before the Senate today has the potential to literally save billions and billions for Social Security. Mr. President, last year, the House did pass my disability bill by a vote of 410-1. Unfortunately, the bill was tied up in the Senate by some shenanigans and it died. That was a tremendous disappointment to me, and to be honest, I didn't think we would be back to talking about a disability bill in the Senate for a long, long time. But we are back here today, and I am proud that the disability provisions in the bill before us largely borrows from my old legislation. The bill's sponsors did make some further changes to their bill at my request that I think improves it, and I appreciate that. But we still have a way to go. And there are several conditions that have to be met for me to support any conference report. The bill has to be fully paid for with other spending reductions. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the conference report has to be fully offset, and contain no new taxes. I intend to stick by that agreement. I also want to see changes that the sponsors negotiated with me on the ticket maintained in the final conference report. I appreciate their working with me, and I think our efforts have produced a better bill. We shouldn't move backward in the conference report. This is a good bill, but it is not perfect. And we still have to hear from the House. But we are making progress. I'm eager to move forward. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Today the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 12 noon to 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1122, the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Completion of that bill is expected early in the week. Therefore, Senators should be prepared to offer amendments to the bill as early as possible. Further, it is the intention of the majority leader to move to proceed to the Y2K legislation today. It is expected that a cloture motion will be filed on that motion today with a cloture vote to occur on Wednesday at a time to be determined by the majority leader. Tomorrow, it is the intention of the majority leader to move to proceed to the Social Security lockbox legislation with a cloture vote to occur on that legislation on Thursday. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the current debate on the pending amendment which authorizes a round of military base closings commencing in 2001. At this time I do not support a further round of base closings. Therefore, I oppose this amendment for the following reasons. I have repeatedly asked the Department of Defense, military bases in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and the Kentucky Department of Military Affairs for information and proof that the past rounds of base closings have produced any savings to the Department of Defense or the U.S. taxpayer. After repeatedly asking for this information to prove this point, it has not been provided to me. Therefore, I need to see proof in savings and these savings need to be in ``real'' terms and without any accounting gimmicks and projected budgetary outcomes based on guesswork. Many criticize the Department of Defense's current accounting measures. They say these accounting measures are not soundly based and that these measures are used in decisions which result in an unjust imbalance between our military base infrastructure and the rest of the military. Just because the Department of Defense is reduced in certain areas by a certain percentage, doesn't mean that our military base infrastructure should be cut at the same percentage level. The Department of Defense needs to measure any downsizing of our military base infrastructure in a formulaic way rather that just an across the board cut done blindly and foolishly. Also, I am not convinced that if savings were found from past base closings, that the bases in Kentucky, Ft. Knox and Ft. Campbell, would be protected and strengthened. I have recently been told by the U.S. Army that these bases would not be harmed and that they would benefit from any future rounds of closings. The U.S. Army talked of these bases as being leading posts in their branches. However, I have not seen any new strengths added to these bases from past closings and I have not been told of any specific missions which would be added to those bases in Kentucky. I need reassurance from the U.S. Army that these posts will be protected by seeing the future plans for these posts and the specific missions which would be added to them. Furthermore, I am not convinced that our military in its current state can do more with less. We are in a tangled mission in Yugoslavia, we have major troop deployments around the Korean peninsula and around Iraq, and we have U.S. troops scattered amongst some 40 other spots elsewhere in the world. Our deployments have increased dramatically over the past decade. If this trend of increased deployments continues, I cannot see the rationality of downsizing our military base structure in the midst of this pattern which seems to have no end. In conclusion, I have not seen savings from past military base closings. Even if I was convinced there were savings, I am not convinced that the military bases and the soldiers that serve and work at those bases in Kentucky would be protected. I am concerned about minimizing our base structure while our soldiers and military do more with less. Also, past base closings have been politicized at the Presidential level and I fear the process may continue down that path again. Because of these reasons, I oppose this amendment which authorizes another round of base closings.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 900, which will modernize our financial services laws. If our financial industries are going to be able to compete in the world market in the next century, we must modernize our depression-era banking laws. The next century is almost here. We all talk about a Y2K problem. What about the antique banking law problem? Entering the new century with antiquated banking laws would be foolhardy. We have to reform our financial service system. Most of the financial services and bank laws that are on the books today are based on the Glass-Steagall Act, legislation passed in 1935, over 60 years ago! The world has changed a great deal since then, and it is going to change further and faster as we move into the 21st century. We need to update our outdated laws to account for this change and to give flexibility to American companies. At the same time, we must make sure that any bill we pass treats all the segments of the financial industry fairly, and that there is a level playing field for all of the groups involved. If history is any indication, any new law we pass will be with us for a long time, so we had better get it right. We've been working to get it right for a long time. Eleven years ago, when I was a member of the House Banking Committee, we were able to report a financial services modernization bill to the floor. Last year the House passed a bill and the Senate was able to pass a bill out of committee. As a Member of the House last year, I supported the bill that passed by one vote in the House. It wasn't perfect. There were things I would have liked to change. But I believed at the time that we couldn't allow the search for perfection to block real progress. That's even more true this year. We can talk about banking reform--and negotiate issues--for another twelve years--and we won't ever be able to make everyone totally happy. There are too many competing interests and too much complexity is involved in the rapidly changing financial services industry for us ever to find a regulatory framework that will completely satisfy all of the players involved. It's not going to happen. At some point, we just have to do the best we can and move ahead. I'm convinced we have reached that point now--we should pass this bill. Fortunately, the bill our committee approved this year is even better than the bills we considered last year. Chairman Gramm and his staff did a good job--the committee did a good job. It is time to move ahead. We should pass a clean bill quickly and send a message to the other body that we are serious about financial services reform. This bill has many important provisions. And I'm not going to talk about them all, but I would like to mention one issue in particular. The one issue my bankers bring up every time they come to visit is Community Reinvestment Act or CRA reform. I am very pleased the chairman has agreed to put CRA provisions in the bill and that we were able to pass Senator Shelby's amendment in committee that will provide CRA relief, especially to small banks in my State and across the Nation. Senator Shelby's amendment will exempt 154 small banks in Kentucky from Federal CRA burdens. These banks have always invested in the community. That is where their business is. A bank in Clinton, Kentucky does not lend in Louisville or Lexington, it lends in Clinton. I have a letter from Robert Black, president and CEO of the Clinton Bank. Mr. Black says: ``We were using good CRA practices long before the burdensome regulation was passed. This regulation is now requiring much of our time preparing documentation and placing pins in a map just to prove that we made loans in every community.'' I should mention that Clinton, Kentucky was not named after Bill Clinton. I would also like to read a passage from a letter from E.L. Williams, president of the Citizens Deposit Bank of Arlington, in Arlington Kentucky. Mr. Williams states: ``In our opinion, the time and money afforded to CRA compliance in small banks could be used to a much greater advantage, such as lending and assisting the low to moderate income population for which the CRA was originally implemented.'' These small banks will lend in their own communities with or without CRA. They don't need Federal regulators breathing down their necks to make sure they are doing what they would be doing anyway. I would personally like to see even greater reform of CRA--across the board--but our small banks really need and deserve relief and this bill provides it. In closing, Mr. President, I repeat that this bill is not perfect. But it is a dramatic improvement over the antique financial laws we are operating under now and it is a dramatic improvement over the Sarbanes substitute. We must enter the 21st century ready to compete and this bill will make that possible. It is a good bill--I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 20 for a number of reasons, and in favor of tabling. First of all, we have no national security interest to intervene in this civil war. I have not heard one compelling reason from President Clinton, the Pentagon, the Secretary of State, my colleagues, or anyone else as to why America needs to send her troops halfway around the globe and into the middle of another nation's civil war. I am dismayed to see on television every night the images of refugees fleeing their destroyed homes and villages, and everybody should be disheartened by this horrific tragedy. But if there should be any immediate intervention into this civil war, let it come directly from those European neighbors where this tragedy is occurring. This is happening in Europe's backyard, and it has been happening there for century upon century. We need to force Europe to deal with this and let them take the lead. Are we going to intervene wherever we see these images and similar ones on our television every night? If so, then America will be everywhere at all times and our military will be spread throughout the corners of the world, into different regional, civil, ethnic, and tribal conflicts, and our military will be stretched to the point of breaking. Second, by using whatever force necessary by the United States in this region, we will be pulling our troops and weapons out of regions where we truly have an interest. Are we ready to stop the no-fly zone around Iraq and send our troops into a ground war in Kosovo? This could entice Saddam Hussein to invade other Middle Eastern countries, much like he did Kuwait. Are we ready to dive into a war in Kosovo by pulling our military forces out and away from our presence on the border of North Korea? Iraq and North Korea are the two most dangerous hot spots in the world. Can we justify scaling back our efforts in those two regions to play referee in a civil war in Kosovo? Are we prepared to let Saddam Hussein out of the cage and pull away from North Korea, which has a nuclear missile capability? These two areas hold our national security interests. I don't believe Kosovo is even close by comparison. Third, because of Kosovo, our military readiness is suffering. The Clinton administration believes our military is ready for a variety of missions. Yet, President Clinton has required more of our soldiers with less money and support. In the past 10 years, the national defense budget has been cut by approximately $120 billion. The U.S. military force structure has been reduced by more than 30 percent. The Department of Defense operations and maintenance accounts have been reduced by 40 percent. The Department of Defense procurement funding has declined by more than 50 percent. Operational commitments for the U.S. military have increased fourfold. The Army has reduced its ranks by over 630,000 soldiers and civilians, closed over 700 installations at home and overseas, and cut 10 divisions from its force structure. The Army has reduced its presence in Europe from 215,000 to 65,000 personnel. The Army has averaged 14 major deployments every four years, increased significantly from the cold war trend of one deployment every four years. The Air Force has been downsized by nearly 40 percent, while at the same time experiencing a fourfold increase in operational commitments. And I could go on and on as to how we are decreasing the power and force of our military while asking them to do more and more. And just last week the President called up 33,000 reservists to answer his call to Kosovo. Why? It is most likely because recruitment is at the lowest it has ever been and because our soldiers are leaving the Armed Forces in droves. Here are a couple quotes I found that are very timely to this debate and even more disturbing. The high level of operations over the past several years is beginning to wear on both our people and our systems and is stressing our readiness. That was what Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, General Ralph Eberhart said in the Air Force Times. Here's another quote. This is from General Gordon Sullivan, former Army Chief of Staff. With our national budget now allocating only 3 percent of the gross domestic product to defense, I see our future national security in peril. And finally a quote from the chief sponsor of this Senate joint resolution who is also a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said in 1998 in the July issue of Defense Daily, that he currently sees, and I quote, ``very serious echoes of the 1970s when we had a hollow army.'' He said, ``I think that we have failed to modernize the force.'' And he adds, ``We're losing qualified men and women. We've having to lower our recruiting standards.'' Mr. President, with this information, how can we vote and pass a resolution knowing that our military is not ready to carry out a mission which authorizes President Clinton to use all force necessary to accomplish United States and NATO objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? And how can we expect our military to fully enter into this war without being told what their mission is, how long they will be deployed there, and what their exit strategy is. The military does not know, the American people do not know, the Congress does not know, and I doubt President Clinton knows what those answers are that many of my colleagues in Congress have been asking for months. Will there be more troops deployed if our goals and mission are not met? What are the rules of engagement? How will this mission be paid for and will valuable dollars be pulled from military readiness accounts to pay for this deployment? What, if any, is our exit strategy? We need to reject this resolution for the sake of our military and for the sake of the stature of the United States in the world. We have no national security interests to throw our soldiers into a war in Kosovo. And we have had no answers from this administration who would dare throw our country into a war as to why this is a national security interest to the United States. If rejecting this resolution undermines NATO, then so be it and let it undermine NATO. This administration has already warped NATO by turning it into an offensive force instead of its original nature of being a defensive force against Soviet threats. Let us not throw our sons and daughters into war to preserve an international organization. Please let us reject this resolution, and if necessary table it tomorrow. Thank you. I thank the President.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution and to express my deepest, heartfelt sympathy for the families of the victims of Columbine High School shootings. At a time like this, words seem to lose their meaning, and there is little that we can say to adequately express our regret and sorrow. There is no way to explain the senseless violence that claimed the lives of the students and teacher in Littleton, and we struggle to understand and explain the inexplicable. Schools are supposed to be safe havens where teenagers--children--are supposed to grow and learn, not plot to murder their peers. What happened in Colorado simply defies explanation or comprehension. During trying times like this, we must fall back on our faith. Our faith in God, and family, and community. Our beliefs have been shaken, and we must rely on each other and trust that the Lord will help see us through the confusing darkness that has descended on our Nation after this terrible catastrophe. A similar tragedy occurred at a high school in Paducah less than a year and a half ago. Unfortunately, this is an experience that we in Kentucky have been through and we grieve with our friends in Colorado. The children of Colorado and their families will continue to be in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, a tragedy occurred in my home state of Kentucky on the morning of April 22nd. A UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter crashed at Ft. Campbell during a training mission. Seven of the United States Army's 101st Airborne Division's finest soldiers died in that crash. I would ask us all to remember Sergeant Anthony Wade Brown, Specialist Earl Condary Eoff, Sergeant Robert Gerald Millward, Sergeant James Robert Murphy, Jr., Chief Warrant Officer Two Aaron King Power, Specialist Fury John Rice, and Sergeant Julius Raymond Wilkes, Jr. We must also keep their fellow soldiers, friends, and especially their families in our prayers during this difficult time of mourning. These seven soldiers took an oath when they joined the military to defend this great nation. We must not take for granted their service and their commitment to us. We should take an oath now that they will remain in our hearts forever and that we will never forget them. God bless these men.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning the Social Security lockbox legislation. Last year, as chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, I introduced legislation which would have reserved 100 percent of the anticipated budget surpluses for Social Security. When that bill was marked up in committee, it was changed to 90 percent. Subsequently, that bill was passed by the full House of Representatives but it was attacked viciously by the President and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle because it did not protect 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. The bill we are considering now in the Senate would do exactly what I originally set out to do in 1998. It would do exactly what the President promised to do in 1998. It locks up the Social Security surpluses to protect them and to insure those surpluses are not used for other programs, tax cuts, or additional spending. It locks up 100 percent of the Social Security surpluses--not 62 percent--not 90 percent--but 100 percent. It requires that those surpluses--and we are talking about a lot of money, as much as $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years--are not recycled out as debt and spent on other Government programs as we have done in the past. This is a good bill. It is a good concept. It pays down the debt and it protects Social Security. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to vote for the motion to invoke cloture.

Mr. BUNNING

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

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

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, the pending amendment, No. 157, offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, proposes to create a new entitlement for the NIH funded with increased taxes. This language is not germane to the budget resolution before us; therefore, I raise a point of order under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. motion to waive the budget act