Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Medicare Preservation Act. It's a good bill. It preserves Medicare--it strengthens Medicare. It keeps Medicare from going bankrupt. And best of all it gives senior citizens more options--more choices. I think you will all agree that Members of the U.S. Congress have a pretty good health care system. We get a booklet every year that lists the options available to us-- insurance plans or PPO's and HMO's. We get a wide range of choices. We can pick a plan that suits our needs and our family's needs. It's a pretty good deal. I have enrolled in a PPO. I still get to see my family doctor. I show him this card and my office visit only costs me $10. And I have this other card that I can take to the drug store and pick up my prescription medicine and no matter how much it costs, I only pay $10. It's a pretty good deal. This Medicare reform bill that we are considering today gives the senior citizens of our country the same kind of options that Members of Congress now have. It will give them the same kind of choices we have. That's the beauty of this bill. We save Medicare. We strengthen Medicare and on top of it all, we make Medicare better. We are going to hear a lot of outrageous rhetoric about how we are slashing benefits. That's hogwash. It's political hogwash. And I, for one, think that this program is a little too important to play political games with. This bill is a good bill. It gives senior citizens the same kind of health care that Members of Congress enjoy now. That's a pretty good deal for everybody. [[Page H 10378]] We don't cut benefits for senior citizens. Our bill doesn't increase copayments. It doesn't increase deductibles. It increases the average amount of money that Medicare spends on every beneficiary by nearly $2,000 over the next 7 years. Sure we slow the growth rate. If we don't slow the growth rate of Medicare spending, Medicare will bounce over the cliff to bankruptcy in just a few years. Ten percent growth rates simply cannot be sustained. Everybody knows that. And our bill slows the growth rate to 6\1/2\ percent. But that is still growth. It is not a cut. It is not a cut because we slow the rate of growth in Medicare spending by providing more choices, not by cutting benefits. By providing more options--more choices--we introduce competition into Medicare. We put private sector ideas to work. We inject the free enterprise system into the Medicare system. It will make it more efficient and more cost-effective. At the same time, if someone is happy with Medicare just the way it is; if someone is a little nervous about trying something new; if they are happy with the traditional fee for service and don't want to change, they can keep their existing Medicare plan. Our bill doesn't force anybody to change. It doesn't force anyone to join an HMO if they don't want to. It doesn't force them to change doctors or hospitals or anything. Anyone who likes Medicare just the way it is can keep going along just like they have been. People like this--people who don't want to change Medicare--should like this bill too. It preserves Medicare and traditional fee for service for them. It keeps Medicare from going bankrupt. We are not in a situation where we can stick our heads in the sand and say don't change anything, don't touch Medicare. If we do nothing, Medicare will go bankrupt in 7 years. President Clinton's appointees who serve as trustees to the Medicare trust fund have told us that we need to make changes to keep the program solvent. We can't do nothing. Medicare is far too important to too many people. The Democrats in Congress want to stick their heads in the sand. The President wants to stick his head in the sand. They know full well that we are doing the right thing. They know full well that Medicare needs fixing. But they would rather play political games. They know they can win political points by crying wolf, by saying that Republicans are cutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the rich. They know it isn't true but they know they can win points by scaring people who are dependent on Medicare. Republicans knew there were political risks when we took on this task. We knew it was dangerous politically to tackle Medicare's problems. It would have been much easier for us to pretend--like the President--that Medicare wasn't in that bad of shape. It would have been much easier and safer politically to slap a band- aid on Medicare like the President wanted to do. But we didn't take the easy way out. Republicans in Congress stepped up to the responsibility of leadership and did the right thing. We didn't dodge the issue. And we ended up with a bill that I think is about as good as possible. It might not be perfect. It makes sweeping changes in a huge program and deals with a ton of complex issues. And we might have to go back in next year or the year after and fine tune it. But this bill provides a good basic foundation for the long term financial health of our Medicare Program. It preserves Medicare. It strengthens Medicare. It gives senior citizens the same kind of choices in health care that Members of Congress have. And it makes Medicare more efficient and more cost- effective. I urge my colleagues to support and pass this bill. And I urge the President to quit playing politics with the health care of our senior citizens and sign this bill when it reaches his desk.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Medicare Preservation Act. It's a good bill. It preserves Medicare--it strengthens Medicare. It keeps Medicare from going Bankrupt. And best of all it gives senior citizens more options--more choices. I think you will all agree that Members of the U.S. Congress have a good health care system. We get a booklet every year that lists the options available to us-- insurance plans or PPOS and HMOS. We get a wide range of choices. We can pick a plan that suits our needs and our family's needs. It's a good deal. I have enrolled in a PPO. I still get to see my family doctor--my gatekeeper. I show him this card--and my office visit only costs me $10. And I have this other card that I can take to the drug store and pick up my prescription medicine and no matter how much it costs, I only pay $10. It's a good deal. This Medicare reform bill that we are considering today gives the senior citizens of our country the same kind of options that Members of Congress now have. It will give them the same kind of choices we have. That's the beauty of this bill. We save Medicare. We strengthen Medicare and on top of it all, we make Medicare better. We are going to hear a lot of outrageous rhetoric about how we are slashing benefits--that's hogwash. It's political hogwash. And I, for one, think that this program is too important to play political games with. This bill is a good bill--it gives senior citizens the same kind of health care that Members of Congress enjoy now. That's a good deal.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995 and the manager's amendment. My primary objection to this bill is process. We have waited 60 years to reform our communications laws. It needs to be done. We need deregulation. But, I believe that if we waited 60 years to do it, we could wait another month, do it right, and work out some of the problems in this bill instead of ramming it through during the middle of the night. If we would have gone a little more slowly, I believe that we could have come to an agreement that the regional Bells and the long distance companies could agree with. Instead we are passing a bill that I believe favors the regional Bells a little too much. This bill makes it too easy for the regional Bells to get into long distance service and too difficult for cable and long distance companies to get into local service. We should not allow the regional Bells into the long distance market until there is real competition in the local business and residential markets. It is not AT&T, MCI, or Sprint that I am worried about. They are big enough to take care of themselves. I am concerned about the affect this bill will have on the small long distance companies who have carved themselves out a nice little niche in the long distance market. This bill will put a lot of the over 400 small long distance companies out of business. I agree that the bill that was originally reported out of committee probably did give an unfair edge to the long distance companies, but the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of the regional Bells. If we wait instead of passing this bill tonight we may be able to find a solution that is fair to everyone. My second reason for opposing this bill is the fact that the little guys--many of the independent phone companies--got lost in the shuffle. This bill has been a battle of the titans. The baby Bells against AT&T and MCI. But the big boys aren't the only players in telecommunications. There are plenty of smaller companies like Cincinnati Bell which services the center of my district in northern Kentucky. This bill is not a deregulatory bill for Cincinnati Bell. It is a regulations bill. Although Cincinnati Bell has never been considered a major monopolistic threat to commerce, this bill throws it in with the big boys and requires them to live with the same regulations as the RBOC's--one size fits all. For Cincinnati Bell and over 1,200 independent phone companies around the country this bill is a step in the wrong direction. It's more regulation rather than deregulation. I also believe that this bill deregulates the cable industry much too quickly. We should not lift the regulations until there is a viable competitor to the cable companies. The underlying principles in this bill are right on target. We need to deregulate telecommunications and increase competition. That will benefit everyone. For that reason, I dislike having to vote against H.R. 1555. But I firmly believe that even though this bill is on the right track, it is just running at the wrong speed. Let's slow down the train and do it right.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, August 14 will mark the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act by President Franklin Roosevelt. With his signature and the support of Congress, a new commitment was established between the American people and their Government. To mark this anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act, I along with my colleague, Andy Jacobs, am introducing, today, a resolution to celebrate that landmark commitment. This resolution will celebrate the occasion the best way possible--by letting the American people know that the House of Representatives still honors that 60-year-old commitment to Social Security and that the House of Representatives intends to make sure that this 60-year-old commitment is honored. I urge my colleagues to join with me and Andy Jacobs and support this resolution.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith-Chabot amendment. No one wants to be a pork barrel politician these days. It isn't the politically correct thing to do. But we cannot afford to run every time we see a needed infrastructure project come along. We cannot afford to make the mistake of sticking our heads in the sand--no matter how badly we want to balance the budget--and pretend that we aren't going to need improvements in our Nation's infrastructure in the next several decades. This amendment basically does just that. It says ``We can save a few dollars today by pretending our transportation system won't be overloaded to the point of breakdown in the next 10 years. We can do that--but it is very foolish to do so. What do we do in 10 years? Park our cars and walk? I am not familiar with every project on this list. There might be some clinkers in there--there might be some projects that go oink in the night. But I am familiar with one project in particular--the I-71/I-75 corridor study to determine the best way to meet our transportation needs in the future on a heavily traveled corridor through Cincinnati, OH and northern Kentucky. This project is not pork. This project is a vital infrastructure necessity, if our area is going to continue growing without gridlock. We can't just stick our heads in the sand, in northern Kentucky and southern Ohio. We know that traffic through this corridor is going to increase to between 100,000 and 160,000 vehicles a day over the next 10 years--if we can keep them moving. We know that emplanements at the Cincinnati/northern Kentucky airport are going to more than double over the next 10 years--if the people can get there. We know that the air quality problems which have already plagued the area periodically are going to get worse--unless we find new ways to move people through the corridor. We know that northern Kentucky is growing like wildfire and that major downtown and waterfront developments are taking place on both sides of the Ohio river and we know that the existing transportation system is not going to be able to handle this expansion. And we have responded to these facts--reasonably, rationally and cautiously. We have followed the blueprint laid out in ISTEA. The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments--which serves as the designated metropolitan planning organization for the area, supports this project. It has the support of the Governors of Ohio and Kentucky and the local officials on both sides of the river. The Federal Government has already invested $2\1/2\ million in this ongoing study. State and local sponsors have already spent over $600,000. This project was included in the highway authorization bill that passed this body last year. It is not something new that we dreamed up on the spur of the moment. This project has followed all the rules. This bill provides $2 million to continue the process and provide for an environmental impact study and preliminary engineering--so that we can determine the best way to proceed. It would be ridiculous, at this point, to throw out everything we have done--ignoring the investment of $2\1/2\ million--to save $2 million today. The Smith-Chabot amendment is penny wise and pound foolish, Mr. Chairman and we simply can't afford it. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. We can save a few bucks today by sticking our heads in the sand but if we do so, sometime down the road, we are going to find out that not only do we have sand in our ears but we also have one terrible traffic jam. Reject Smith-Chabot.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Durbin amendment. This is a mean-spirited attack on the small farmer throughout the South. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] does not like smoking, but this amendment will not stop one person from smoking. It will only hurt the small tobacco grower in my district and throughout the South. The opponents of tobacco always imply that we should not pay farmers to grow tobacco. We do not. Let me repeat that, the Federal Government does not pay subsidies to farmers to grow tobacco. The government only pays for the administrative cost of the tobacco program, which the farmers pay back to the government. Over $20 billion in Federal, State and local taxes are paid by the tobacco companies annually into the Treasury of Kentucky and the United States of America. Sure, our government also offers some of the same programs, like crop insurance and extension service, to tobacco farmers, but we should offer them the same services that the other farmers receive. We need that help with out small tobacco farmer. We have to have the same help that the farmers of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] have in Illinois from our extension service, so we know how to do it better in Kentucky. Remember, it is a legal commodity. They are not outlaws, our small farmers. This bill will do not one thing, I say to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], to prevent smoking. It will not only hurt the big tobacco companies, it will not decrease the deficit, it will only treat the small farmers of America like criminals. It is bad policy. It is unfair. It is wrong to do it, and I urge the defeat of the Durbin amendment.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. I say to the gentleman, ``If you call me a liar, I react to it.''

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. So the fact of the matter is the FDA did swoop down on this company in Seattle and do exactly what I said, and that is right here, in case the gentleman is interested, on page 28 of the Congressional Service. Let me get the date for the gentleman.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. The gentleman called me a liar.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in yielding such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] for the purposes of a colloquy, does the gentleman believe the things written in CRS are factual?

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I response to the gentleman from Michigan I would like to just give him some information he might not have, that on July 14 of this year the FDA agents swooped into the headquarters of Synthetic Systems of Seattle, WA, to seize a device that poses a serious threat to the American people. What was the device? It was a chair that had a massage machine attached to it. They came in, and it was a relaxation machine, and the FDA, without warning, came in and removed it, stopped the sale of a relaxing chair machine that had a massage motor attached to it. If that is not an agency out of control, I have never seen one. I would like to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. I understand that the timber industry in his area needs help, and we understand that this Congress took steps to take care of that. I really personally resent the implication that the only reason that we are offering this amendment is that the FDA might, might, consider classifying tobacco as an addictive drug. There is no proof of that, and he knows it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

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

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It strikes all funding for the food and drug administration from the bill. The amendment is meant to send a shot across the bow of the FDA. It's a rogue agency that's out of control and Congress needs to slap it down. At a time when we are cutting the size of Government and slashing red tape, the FDA is heading in the opposite direction. It wants broader regulation and bigger bureaucracies. Dr. David Kessler, the FDA Commissioner, summed up his philosophy pretty well a couple of years ago when he proudly noted that the FDA was ``Getting new regulations out faster than ever before.'' When you stop to consider that the FDA is probably the most powerful government agency in the world with direct regulatory authority over a trillion dollars worth of our economy, Dr. Kessler's regulatory glee is more than a little frightening. But, still, what have all of these new regulations got us? Back in the 1970's it took 5 to 7 years to develop a new drug and get it approved. Now it takes 12. As recently as 1992 the median approval time for medical devices was 102 days. Last year it climbed to 182 days. It took 3\1/2\ years for the FDA to approve the kidney treatment drug interlukin-2, even though nine other countries had already approved it. During this time, an estimated 25,000 Americans died of kidney cancer. Because of a 7-year delay in the approval of a heart medicine commonly known as beta blockers, the director of Tufts University Center for the study of drug development estimates that 119,000 Americans died who might have been helped by this drug. All of this has happened in spite of the fact that the FDA has continued to expand. Since 1990, the FDA's budget has grown 27 percent. The number of employees who work for the agency has climbed 14 percent. Mr. Chairman, we might have more regulations than ever before. But I believe that in their zeal to safeguard the American public from every possible evil, Dr. Kessler and the FDA have actually been slowly regulating America to death. Mr. Chairman, last November the voters told us they don't want more Government and more regulation. They want less. They want less Government interference in their day-to-day lives. They want less micromanaging by Federal bureaucrats. And the American people certainly don't want Federal agencies pumping out rules and regulations faster than ever before. But, in case the FDA hasn't noticed, the age of the welfare state is ending. The time when the Federal Government acted as a nanny for the public is passing. In a recent op-ed piece, former Delaware Governor Pete Dupont even went so far as to dub Dr. Kessler the ``National Nanny''. This is one nanny who has been slowly suffocating the children. Mr. Chairman, I'm a realist. I don't hold out much hope that my amendment will pass the House. But I want to send a message. We have to let Dr. Kessler and the FDA know that some of us in Congress are watching. Some of us recognize that the Commissioner is out of control, and the FDA is out of control. And more importantly, I think that we need to continue sending the signal that the time of Government passing more and more regulations in the name of compassion for its citizens is passing. FDA regulations are raising health costs. FDA regulations are killing people. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Duncan amendment to eliminate [[Page H 7202]] the funding for Kessler's Clarksburg castle. The FDA lacks many things but it does not lack office space. Testimony before the Treasury/Postal Subcommittee clearly indicated that the FDA does not need a new campus to carry out its mission. Accordingly to the testimony, the FDA has added 23 new buildings to its inventory since 1987. But the FDA argues that it needs more new facilities to further inter-center communication. Give me a break. Maybe David Kessler hasn't heard of the Internet but Congress has already provided the FDA with state-of-the-art computers that allow its scientists to talk with each other on the net. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Kessler is the stereotypical out- of control Washington bureaucrat who is certain that he knows better how to spend the taxpayers' money than they do. After all, he has been dubbed ``The National Nanny''. The FDA even used the stereotypical studies to decide that they absolutely had to have this campus. FDA turned down a 400-acre site near Rockville which already has a Metro station and it rejected a similar-size site near the FDA headquarters in Germantown. Their studies showed that the cost would be between $300 million and $500 million of the taxpayers' dollars and now the cost has grown to $810 million. To paraphrase Lady Margaret Thatcher: David Kessler has the bureaucrat's disease; he has run out of other people's money to spend. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is real money that Dr. Kessler wants. And, it comes out of the pockets of the hard-working American taxpayer. Fortunately, the Appropriations Committee did not fully fund the cost of this project; it provided only the seed money. But, to the extent that it is funded at all, the more likely it is that we will ultimately end up paying the full inflated cost for this boondoggle. We all know the routine. Make the initial investment and then it becomes impossible to stop the project even if it isn't justified. Once we start, we have to keep spending under the guise of protecting our investment. In Washington logic, even if we don't need Kessler's castle, it would be a waste of money to stop the project after we have purchased land, drawn up plans and maybe even broken ground. Outside of Washington they think differently. They call this type of foolishness by its real name: waste, throwing good money after bad. I for one don't buy the Washington logic. We need to practice a little common sense around here. Unfortunately, the Kessler-led FDA has not been accused of committing common sense on this project. Any funding of Kessler's castle just does not make sense. As Dr. Edward Hudgins, the director of regulatory studies at the Cato institute, said in his testimony before the Appropriations Committee: The further the plans proceed for this new FDA facility, the tighter fiscal waste and bad policies will be locked into place, even if cuts and reforms are called for. Let's do the smart thing. Vote to eliminate funding for Kessler's castle. Support the Duncan amendment.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, for 40 years the Democrats controlled the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment to eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. [[Page H 6859]] It is an amendment whose time has not come. The energy and water appropriations bill that we are considering today already reduces Federal spending on ARC by $142 million for fiscal year 1996. That is a real cut of 50 percent. Sometimes in Congress we confuse the issue of cuts in spending by talking about cuts that are not actually cuts. They are just reductions in estimated future spending increases that really are not cuts at all. They are only imaginary. That is not the case with ARC in this bill. H.R. 1905 reduces ARC spending from $282 million for fiscal year 1995 to $142 million for fiscal year 1996. The Klug amendment proposes to go further and completely eliminate ARC. Plain and simple, this is just a bad idea. For the poverty-stricken areas in Kentucky and the other parts of Appalachia that ARC helps, a 50-percent cut is a very, very tough hit. To wipe out ARC completely would be nothing short of disastrous. Even now when we are finally making the tough reductions in spending necessary to balance the budget, there are scores of other Federal programs that are not getting cut by 50 percent of anything near this figure. But we are asking ARC beneficiaries, some of the poorest and neediest people in America, to take a 50-percent hit. They are already doing their fair share and more in helping Congress to get the Nation's fiscal house in order. Trying to up the ante to a 100-percent cut like the Klug amendment proposes literally adds insult and further hurt to an already aching injury. The Appalachian Regional Commission is one of those rare Government programs that get results. Because of ARC, infant mortality rates in Appalachia are down 67 percent. ARC spending on education has helped double high school graduation rates. ARC has helped put in roads to link lonely, isolated areas. It has built water treatment plants for communities that could not treat their sewage. I know personally that in Kentucky ARC has made a real difference in the essential quality of life in the most impoverished areas in my home State. Everyone knows that Federal agencies have to tighten their belts if we are going to balance the Federal budget. And under this bill ARC has tightened its belt plenty. But if the Klug amendment passes, we would be tightening the belt so much that we would end up strangling the victim. The Klug amendment asks us to take from the poorest of the poor. It is that simple. ARC is an agency that helps some of our neediest communities, and to kill it now would be a sad setback. We are already cutting ARC funding by 50 percent. Half of the loaf is gone. It would be a sad day if we were to adopt the Klug amendment and take the other half away. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that there are many Members of the House who have a stronger record than I do on cutting Government spending. But the Klug amendment is one proposal that goes too far. It does not slice off the fat of Government spending. It does not just cut into bone. It rips the heart and soul out of the program. It is a wholesale amputation. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Klug amendment.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to the DeLauro amendment to H.R. 1530, the Department of Defense authorization bill. By seeking to force U.S. military hospitals to perform abortions, the Clinton administration is in my view promoting elective abortions contrary to the Hyde amendment policy and Federal law. Under Supreme Court precedent, public hospitals can choose to deny to perform elective abortions regardless of whether these abortions would be paid for with public or private funds. But the DeLauro amendment would mandate that Government-run military hospitals have to perform this awful procedure. Period. They would have no choice in the matter. It does not make sense to me to have one set of policies for our civilian hospitals and another for the medical installations on our military bases. Proponents of the DeLauro amendment rely on the argument that under this proposal abortions would not be paid for with public funds. But I have to disagree with this. These abortions would be performed on taxpayer-supported bases in taxpayer-supported medical facilities. The DeLauro amendment might claim that these abortions would be paid for with private funds. But the inescapable fact is that whether one talks about the funds that pay the hospital utility bills or for leased land that the base occupies, taxpayer dollars do support facilities that would carry out these abortions. This contradicts the clear, strict language of the Hyde amendment that says that no Federal dollars can be used for abortion. It's that simple. The other side on this issue tries to get around the Hyde amendment policy with their proposal. But the fact of the matter is that no matter how hard they try, they cannot. Mr. Chairman, section 732 of the base bill that the DeLauro amendment purports to strike is nothing new. It is simply a restoration of the pro-life policies that we had under Presidents Bush and Reagan. It was wrongly overturned by Executive order by President Clinton, and I staunchly believe that it is time now for Congress to assert its prerogative and reinstitute the Reagan-Bush policy. I urge my colleagues to vote against the DeLauro amendment. We should not have elective abortions in America, and we certainly should not permit them on our overseas bases. This is one thing we certainly do not need to export from America. The National Security Committee easily defeated this amendment, and for 12 of the last 15 years our national policy has argued the exact opposite position. Now it is time to defeat the DeLauro amendment and eliminate the outrage of elective abortion from our military bases. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this disturbing amendment.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Democratic substitute. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gephardt substitute and in support of the Republican budget resolution and urge my colleagues to support it as well. For years, people in this body have talked about balancing the budget. But nothing happened. Deficits keep rolling along. The debt kept climbing. But now, we can change that. We have a budget resolution before us that will actually put us on a path to a balanced budget. We cannot afford to pass this opportunity. Because of the election results last November, we have a window of opportunity that may never happen again. We have to do it now. The Republican budget resolution we consider today is not perfect. It is definitely not easy. But it puts us on a path to a balanced budget and we have done it in a way that makes spending reductions as fairly and as honestly as we could. Make no mistake about it, Congress is going to be forced, under this budget, to make some very hard choices. That's what leadership is all about. Unfortunately, the administration provided nothing in the way of leadership. The Clinton budget was nothing more than status quo-- business as usual in large letters--and large numbers--$200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see. As a result, no one on the minority side even plans to offer the Clinton ``deficits forever'' budget as an alternative today. On the other hand, we promised that we would produce a proposal that would lead to a balanced budget by the year 2002--we did it. We promised the American people that we would produce a budget that provided them much needed tax relief--we did it. And finally, we promised that we would produce a budget that protects the Social Security trust fund and protects Social Security benefits. And as the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, I am proud to say, we did it. So, we have a window of opportunity to provide the kind of leadership our Nation deserves--the kind of leadership the next generation deserves. Honest leadership--leadership that keeps its promises. our budget fully preserves and protects Social Security. Our budget assumes absolutely no changes--no changes of any kind--in the Social Security Program. No COLA cuts. No benefit cuts. No tax increases. Unfortunately, there are those who prefer the status quo and who are willing to resort to all sorts of fear-mongering and false statements designed to frighten senior citizens. They used these tactics to help kill--at least temporarily--the balanced budget amendment in the Senate. They suggested that a balanced budget amendment would result in cuts in Social Security benefits. Our budget resolution today proves them wrong. We can--and we will-- balance the budget without damaging Social Security. In fact, the majority proposal today would actually strengthen Social Security. As it stands right now, the greatest single threat to the long term solvency of Social Security is continued runaway Federal spending. A balanced budget is the greatest guarantee possible that the promise of Social Security will be kept. A balanced budget is the best long-term protection that we can offer for the Social Security trust fund. And our budget will put us on a realistic path to a balanced budget. If you want to vote to preserve and strengthen Social Security--you can vote for the majority budget and feel confident that you are doing the right thing. This is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues here in the House have chosen to demagogue the issue. They are distorting one of the economic assumptions in the Republican budget resolution to suggest that Republicans are trying to cut Social Security COLA's or to raise taxes because of anticipated adjustments in the Consumer Price Index. This is pure hogwash. It is totally dishonest. Our economic assumptions do assume that the Bureau of Labor Statistics will make a correction in the way the Consumer Price Index is computed. Every 10 years the Bureau of Labor Statistics does review the CPI and does make adjustments to make sure that it measures inflation correctly. Economists generally agree that the CPI currently overinflates the rate of inflation by any where between .5 and 1.5 percent. It is generally assumed by honest Republicans and Democrats that the Bureau of Labor statistics will correct this problem in 1998 when they make their next round of CPI adjustments. For this reason, we included, in our budget, an estimate of a .6 percent adjustment in the CPI to take effect in 1999. This is not something Republicans in Congress will do--it is something we assume that the BLS will do. Some people are characterizing this as a Republican COLA cut for Social Security and a tax increase. This is totally dishonest and hypocritical. I would like to point out that in 1987, when the Democrats controlled Congress, the Bureau of Labor statistics made a .4 percent downward adjustment in the CPI. No one called that a Democrat COLA cut. It was a technical correction. And I would also like to point out that Mr. Gephardt's substitute budget today includes economic assumptions that also include a .5 percent downward adjustment in the CPI in 1999--almost identical to the Republican estimate. If you vote for Gephardt, you are voting for virtually the same CPI adjustment as the one included in the Republican budget. So my friends, don't play fast and loose with the truth and try to scare senior citizens. We are not cutting COLA's--we are not cutting benefits. The fact of the matter is that, no matter what the Bureau of Labor statistics does in 1988, the Republican budget does nothing to change Social Security law, Social Security benefits or Social Security COLA's.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the Republican budget resolution and urge my colleagues to support it as well. We promised that we would produce a proposal that would lead to a balanced budget by the year 2002, and we did it. We promised the American people that we would produce a budget that provided them with much-needed tax relief, and we did it. And, finally, we promised that we would produce a budget that protects Social Security trust fund moneys and protects Social Security benefits, and we did it. And as chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, I am proud to say we are not going to touch those funds. Our budget fully preserves and protects Social Security. Our budget assumes absolutely no changes, no changes of any kind in the Social Security program, no COLA cuts, no benefit cuts, no tax increases. Unfortunately, there are those who prefer the status quo and who are willing to resort to all sorts of fear-mongering and false statements designed to frighten our senior citizens. They used these tactics to help kill, at least temporarily, the balanced budget amendment in the Senate. They suggest that a balanced budget amendment would result in cuts in the Social Security benefits. Our budget resolution today proves them exactly wrong. We can, and we will, balance the budget without damaging Social Security. In fact, the majority proposal today would actually strengthen Social Security. As it stands now, the greatest single threat to the long-term solvency of the Social Security system is the continued runaway Federal spending. A balanced budget is the greatest guarantee possible that the promise of Social Security will be kept. A balanced budget is the best long-term protection that we can offer for the Social Security trust funds, and our budget will put us on a realistic path to a balanced budget. If you want to vote to preserve and strengthen Social Security, you can vote for the majority budget and feel very comfortable that you are doing the right thing. So do the right thing and support the majority's budget proposal.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I was back in Kentucky on personal business yesterday attending the funeral of Shirley Rogers, the late wife of my Kentucky colleague, Hal Rogers. I was not present for rollcall votes Nos. 311 through 314. I would like for the Record to show that if I had been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 311, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 312, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 313, and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 314. amendments offered by miss collins of michigan

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the significant contribution of a major national alcohol education and awareness program called Party Smart. This program is a visible, effective commitment by the nonprofit organization Beer Drinkers of America to promote responsible alcohol consumption. The message of Party Smart is simple yet vital: if you make the adult decision to drink alcohol, do it responsibly and in moderation. By implementing education programs in cooperation with major spring break cities, promoting the use of designated drivers, and sponsoring enjoyable nonalcoholic events, Party Smart consistently has shown, since its inception in 1988 that quality, objective, and positive alcohol education not only enhances people's lives, but helps save lives in the process. One Party Smart program in particular has enjoyed a special relationship with my State of Kentucky. For the past 6 years, The Party Smart Designated Driver Program has been an integral part of the Kentucky Oaks and Derby at Churchill Downs. The Party Smart Designated Driver booths are highly visible from all areas of Churchill Downs, with two booths located at the inside track and two more at trackside. Why is the Party Smart Designated Driver Program adopted by the management and concessionaires of the Kentucky Oaks and Derby, and endorsed by Churchill Downs? The answer is simple. Because it works. More than 2,000 Derby-goers sign up each year to be designated drivers and provide safe rides home for their friends. In exchange for their pledge not to drink alcohol, designated drivers receive free nonalcoholic beer and soft drinks. The Kentucky Derby isn't the only place, by the way, where you'll find Party Smart. The Party Smart Fan Alcohol Awareness Program has been an integral part of many major sporting events, including Super Bowl XXIX in January 1995. Championship teams such as the New York Rangers and San Francisco 49ers endorse and participate in the program. It is only natural that this program of champions includes The Kentucky Oaks and Derby. Every year, Party Smart continues doing what it does best--providing quality, privately-funded alcohol awareness information to those who decide not to drink. Beer Drinkers of America with more than 750,000 members in all 50 States, is working through Party Smart to make this year's Kentucky Oaks and Derby memorable, enjoyable, and, above all, safe. I, for one, commend the Beer Drinkers of America, Churchill Downs and the local business community for encouraging personal responsibility and moderation and for doing their part to make the Kentucky Derby--the greatest 2 minutes in the sporting universe--even better.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the tax cut bill that is before the House today. In the last couple of weeks, there has been a lot of hot air and bluster about this bill. It has been interesting to hear the people on the other side of the aisle rant and rave about the unfairness of this tax bill. It reminds me of my predecessor, Gene Snyder, who frequently referred to the howling wolves of liberalism. Today they are not howling, they are just whining. Last night, during special orders, I heard one Member go so far as to call this tax bill, immoral. Anyone who calls this bill unfair or immoral is not reading the same bill I have been reading. I will tell you what is immoral and unfair. Immoral is a policy that penalizes senior citizens for saving for their own retirement. This bill fixes that existing policy. Unfair is a policy that penalizes senior citizens for working. This bill fixes that existing policy. Unfair is a policy that discourages people from buying insurance to take care of themselves in their later years. This bill fixes that. This bill fixes all of these misguided policies. This bill--which includes the Senior Citizens Equity Act which I sponsored--repeals the 1993 Clinton tax increase on Social Security benefits which so unfairly penalized people who managed to save and invest enough during their working years to supplement their retirement incomes. This bill raises the Social Security earnings limit so that seniors who have to work or choose to work after retirement can make more than $11,280 a year and not be penalized. This bill will allow them to make thirty thousand dollars with no penalty. That is fairness. This bill makes it easier for people to buy long term health care insurance so they can take care of themselves in their failing years. That is not unfair. It is sound public policy. This bill makes it easier for people who are terminally ill to cash in their life insurance policies--tax free--to help them pay for their own medical bills. That is compassion and common sense. This tax cut bill gives families a tax credit to help them take care of elderly parents and grandparents. That is policy that encourages individual responsibility. This bill gives a tax credit to help defray the costs incurred by families who want to adopt a child. This bill will make it possible for more families to bring children into loving homes. That is compassion. There is nothing immoral or unfair about any of these things. This is sound public policy. This tax bill encourages individual responsibility. It encourages people to work and save and to pay their own way. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. The unfairness argument does not stick. It is time to do what is right and pass this measure and give the American taxpayer a break.