Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my thanks to all the Members who have worked so hard on Congress' contract with senior citizens--our commitment to bring economic equity to the older generations of Americans. Serving as chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee and working with many of my colleagues who share my concerns about the welfare of seniors has been a fulfilling and challenging experience. We have accomplished a lot in just 3 short months. This week we will see our efforts pay off. This week is a turning point for America's senior citizens. On the first day of this Congress, I, along with Mr. Hastert, Mrs. Kelly, and Mrs. Thurman, introduced the Senior Citizens Equity Act, H.R. 8. Four of the provisions under the Senior Citizens Equity Act have been incorporated into the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act which will be on the floor tomorrow. The Social Security Subcommittee has worked diligently on two of these--the repeal of the 1993 Social Security tax increase and a three- fold increase in the earnings limit for Americans over age 65. Our subcommittee held hearings and heard from real Americans--working seniors who are unduly burdened by Government policy. That's what this contract is about--real Americans, working Americans. And giving them the ability to work and earn. Just as important as the ability to work is the ability to keep what they have spent a lifetime building. When we made a Contract With America, we also made a promise to senior citizens to restore financial equity and fairness. Now we are going to keep that promise, by relieving older Americans of some of the major financial burdens The Government is burdening seniors with tax rates as high as any millionaire could pay. I read in the paper the other day that the new top marginal tax bracket for some retirees is 51.8 percent. The Government is burdening them with disincentives to work and contribute beyond retirement age. Current law requires that seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn above $11,280. Most important, the Government has been burdening them with polices that say no. Policies that just don't make sense. Where is the common sense in a national policy that says don't plan and don't save for your retirement years. Don't continue to work and contribute to society past age 65. Don't expand your long-term-care insurance. These policies just don't make sense. It's time the naysaying of the Federal Government stopped. It's time Congress stood up and said yes to our seniors. Yes to lifting the earnings limit to $30,000. Yes to repealing the 1993 tax hike on Social Security benefits. Yes to providing tax breaks for long-term-care insurance. There was no good reason to increase the Social Security tax on benefits in 1993. It was unfair to single out Social Security for a 35- percent tax increase. We are going to repeal it. It is bad policy to hold older American's earned income to $11,000 a year. The earning limit is an antiquated policy that punishes older Americans for being productive citizens. Many older Americans must work to make ends meet. Senior citizens have a wealth of knowledge and experience to share. The time has come to stop punishing senior citizens. The time has come to recognize hard work, savings, and contributions to society. The time has come and it is now. We are going to move forward with the Senior Citizen's Equity Act by passing the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act tomorrow.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give a small reminder to this House about some of the provisions in the tax bill that we are going to vote on next week. Amid all of the white-hot rhetoric about child tax credits, capital gains tax cuts, and the rest, a lot of people seem to have forgotten that this legislation is really going to help a lot of our Nation's seniors. The Senior Citizens Equity Act is part of this tax bill, and let me just remind my colleagues about how it is going to help them. The bill raises the Social Security earnings limit so that older Americans who work are not penalized for making a little extra income. It makes it easier for folks to buy long-term health care insurance, or to cash in their life insurance policies to help cope with the daunting costs when they are faced with a terminal illness. Best of all, this bill repeals the onerous Clinton Social Security tax increase that the President rammed through this House 2 years ago. Mr. Speaker, the fur is really going to fly when the House debates this tax cut bill. But I urge my colleagues not to forget that this bill does more than cut taxes. It helps senior citizens. And for that alone, it deserves our support.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest support of this conference report. It is about time Congress finally got this done. Ever since the provision in the Tax Code that allows the self- employed to deduct 25 percent of their health insurance costs lapsed at the end of 1993, these people and their families have been in limbo. They did not know if Congress was going to ever get around to addressing the problem or was just going to leave them to slowly twist in the wind for a little while longer. Well, for once, Congress has done the right thing. This bill not only extends the 25 percent deduction for 1994, it raises this level to 30 percent deductibility for 1995 and beyond. Best of all, this extension is permanent. No excuses, no temporary extensions, no gimmicks. Just a simple permanent extension. Period. And, for good measure, there is even $10 million left over from the financing mechanism for this bill for the next 5 years. Over 10 years, this figure rises to almost $1 billion. This is just a drop in the budget deficit bucket, but every little bit helps. I am also, pleased, Mr. Speaker, that in this conference report we were able to repeal the FCC Minority Tax Certificate Program. This is one of the few sections in our Tax Code that conditions tax benefits according to race, and he sooner that we can get rid of all of them the better. This is a step on the road toward a neutral, colorblind Tax Code and Mr. Archer, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, deserves our commendation for his determination to strip the FCC certificate provision out of the Code. I am proud to serve on his committee. Mr. Speaker, I also feel constrained to point out that we were only able to pass this needed legislation after the electoral earthquake of last November made this Congress a Republican one. All during 1994, we heard all sorts of hemming and hawing from the Democratic leadership about how they wanted to help the self-employed and how unfair it was that this deduction had expired. But, when push came to shove, the Democrats did not deliver for the self-employed. We heard all sorts of rhetoric about how we had to pass radical health care reform, and how this would help the self-employed an everybody else as well. But, when the Clinton health care proposal collapsed and the Democrats in Congress refused to pass anything at all, the self- employed got left out in the cold. They were taken hostage during the health care reform debate, and after the debate fizzled their interests were simply left for dead. Mr. Speaker, Republicans know that increasingly it is small business and self-employed workers who are driving the American economic engine. It is in our Nation's best interest to help them, and passing this conference report is the least that we can do for them. Frankly, I view passage of this bill as just the first step in the process. Other businesses get to deduct 100 percent of their employees' health insurance costs, and I do not see any reason why the self- employed should be treated any differently. I look forward to the day when the Congress will level the playing field and pass legislation to fully deduct this cost just like every other American business. The conference report deserves the support of this House, Mr. Speaker. It is about time that Congress got something right and I urge my colleagues to vote for the measure before us today.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. It is possible that that could be, but it is improbable that we will need it.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] realizes we are discussing the welfare reform bill, and when we get to the tax bill I will be more than happy to debate the issue with the gentleman on the $5,000 credit for adoption.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I know of no opposition to the amendment, and I would claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. That is correct.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a provision in this bill that will make a dramatic difference for the kids in this country who are waiting for placement in adoptive homes. Since the early 1980's, adoption placement agencies have been discriminating against these kids and prospective parents because of their race. Under guidelines that the Department of Health and Human Services sent out to State agencies back in 1981, race is one of the factors that can be used in placing children in adoptive homes. In practice, when the actual placement is made by the agencies, race often becomes the sole matching factor that social workers use in making these decisions. The result of this has been that minority children end up waiting twice as long in foster care as white children. And black children, while only constituting 14 percent of the child population, now account for over 40 percent of the children in foster care. Since black families only make up 12.5 percent of the population, this has led Randall Kennedy, the black Harvard law professor, to note that ``even if you do a super job of recruiting, in Massachusetts, where only 5 percent of the population is black and nearly half the kids in need of homes are black, you are still going to have a problem.'' This is not an indictment of the black community. Black Americans have a long tradition of ``taking care of their own'' through informal adoption, kinship care, and other arrangements that are not made public and do not show up in official counts. But, given all that the black community has done, and given 20 years of Federal money going for minority recruitment, we still have a large number of black children with no place to call home. A provision in the Republican welfare bill will help solve this problem. It would deny Federal funds to any agency that uses race as a criteria in placing children in adoptive homes. It is a color-blind provision that will help a lot of children get out of foster care into permanent loving homes, and I think is consistent with our Nation's civil rights laws. Last year, Senator Metzenbaum got a provision included in the minority health amendment bill that originally would have done what we are trying to do in this welfare reform bill. But by the time the so- called child advocates got a whiff of this and helped get it watered down in conference, the provision only codified the then-current practice that Senator Metzenbaum was originally trying to overturn. Since the Metzenbaum bill passed, 43 States have interpreted this law to mean that they can use race to hold up children in foster care. But, now Senator Metzenbaum has indicated that he would like to see his bill repealed so that kids are not tied up in foster care just because of the color of their skin. Back in the late 1960's and 1970's, more than 10,000 black children were adopted by white parents. Research and countless studies clearly show that these children know who they are, feel good about themselves, and do well in school. Until HHS handed down the deluded 1981 guidelines, this was a practice that was working. I know that this is true because I have personal experience in this matter. Two of my daughters have adopted minority children--one that is Korean, one that is biracial. And I can attest to how well this has worked out for my family. The children are happy and doing well, and they have made my family a brighter and happier one. Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between a policy that is based on race and one that is sensitive to race. A policy that prohibits delaying the placement of a child into an adoptive home because of race is not insensitive to race as a cultural issue, but cognizant of the fact that the defining variable here is not race but a loving home. Potential parents should be judged by the love in their hearts, not the color of their skin. Potential adoptive children should be judged not by the color of their skin but by their needs as children. The new policy in this welfare reform bill would accomplish an end to the sacrifice of tens of thousands of minority children, on the altar of political correctness. It is one of the best provisions in this entire bill, and one that I believe will really help improve the race relations in our country. But, most importantly, it will help the kids who are in limbo now, stuck in foster homes only because of their skin color. That is sad, Mr. Chairman, and it is wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and make a difference in these children's lives.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Republican welfare reform bill. Our welfare system has failed us. Everybody agrees on that. Since President Johnson launched the War on Poverty in the 1960's, America has spend over $5 trillion on welfare programs. But, over the last 30 years, the poverty level has actually increased, and America's poor are no better off now than they were then. When you spend $5 trillion on anything, you are bound to get something back. And there have been some cases where people on welfare managed to climb out of poverty. But, as a whole, the welfare system that we have now deserves nothing less than a complete overhaul. It traps recipients in poverty, it denies them opportunity and it has directly contributed to the moral breakdown of the family. It is time to end welfare as we know it. Recent Federal attempts to reform welfare have gone absolutely nowhere. So the Republican welfare bill takes the logical step of giving more authority to the States so that they can shape effective programs that really work. Everyone acknowledges that the States have taken the lead in proposing bold changes to welfare. The real innovation in welfare has been going on in the State capitals, not in Washington. The Republican bill acknowledges this by taking away power from Washington bureaucrats and giving it to local officials who actually have to make assistance programs work on a day-to-day basis. This is a practical solution to a practical problem. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress had their chance to reform welfare and did nothing. Talk about cruelty to children. In 1992, the President campaigned hard on a promise to end welfare as we know it. But it was not until last June that we finally saw his proposal, and then the Democratic Congress sat on it and every other welfare reform bill. It did nothing to change the status quo. Now the Democrats are still talking a pretty good game, and in the next couple of days they are going to complain a lot about the Republican proposal. But the fact is that it is the Republicans who are moving ahead and reforming welfare. If it was not for the Contract With America and the November 8th electoral earthquake, I am sure that we wouldn't be having this debate today. The Members on the other side of the aisle had their chance on this issue and they dropped the ball. And now that they are behind the curve, they are resorting to distortions and false attacks like the bogus charge that the Republican welfare bill cuts funding to the Student Lunch Program. By now, everyone on Capitol Hill should know that this bill increases funding for child nutrition programs by 4.5 percent per year for the next 5 years, and increases WIC spending by 3.8 percent per year over the same period. But the cold, hard fact is that since Republicans have stepped up to the plate on welfare reform, the Democratic leadership's only response has been to respond with misleading, partisan attacks like the school lunch issue since they were unable to pass welfare reform when they had the chance. Mr. Speaker, it is time to move past all of this and face the fact that the time for real welfare reform has come, and that the Republican welfare bill is going to pass. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4 and to help end welfare as we know it.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very reluctant support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very reluctant support of this resolution which amounts to after-the-fact oversight of Mr. Clinton's end run around the Congress. I only wish that Members of Congress had an opportunity to vote on a bill to force Mr. Clinton to cancel his dictator-style use of the taxpayers' money. Unfortunately, we are forced to settle for this too little, too late resolution that is even less than a slap on the wrist for an unprecedented power grab by the President. It sickens me that this body is going along quietly with it. For anyone who was not watching, the President could not get enough support in Congress to go along with his scheme to put the American taxpayer on the line to bail out the Mexican Government. So, he went ahead on his own and raided the exchange stabilization fund to the tune of $20 billion to subsidize the bad decisions of the Mexican Government and big Wall Street investment firms. Now, after the dirty deed has been done, we offer up a resolution to request a few documents from the White House and the Treasury. We will go through the motions of reviewing what Mr. Clinton and Treasury Secretary Rubin have done and in the meantime the American taxpayer is left holding the IOU. I am certain that Secretary Rubin had no concern for the financial interests of his old partners at Goldman, Sachs & Co., one of the big Wall Street investment firms, when this deal was brokered. I am sure that his only motive was to serve his country. Mr. Speaker, I will be interested to see the President's explanation of how he has the authority to obligate billions of dollars without congressional approval. His actions seem to fly directly in the face of the Constitution and they undoubtedly are not what the Congress and the American people wanted. In fact, the President would seem to have many questions to answer. How can he justify raiding the exchange stabilization fund which was designed to protect the dollar? What does he intend to do if, after taking $20 billion of the $27 billion in the fund, the dollar gets into trouble in the foreign exchange markets? How does he intend to replenish the fund? What actions will he take to make sure that Mexico changes its economic practices to insure that there is no repeat of the peso disaster? The list could go on ad nauseam. As representatives of the American people we are entitled to answers to these questions. The President may well have broken the law in obligating the funds from the exchange stabilization fund and Congress is obliged to raise the issue and thoroughly investigate. I applaud my good friend from Alabama, Spencer Bachus, the chairman of the Banking Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, for calling for hearings into this matter. This little half-hearted resolution should not be the end of the inquiry. It is barely the beginning. Good intentions are not the same as good results no matter how much Mr. Clinton and his followers wish that it was so. His supposedly good intentions appear to this Kentuckian to be a bold-faced grab at congressional power. We cannot and must not let that challenge to congressional control of the purse go unanswered. I will vote for this feeble resolution but only in anticipation that it is the first step toward resolving this constitutional conflict, not the last.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 831 and in opposition to the McDermott substitute. With H.R. 831, the House is for once doing the right thing. It permanently extends the health insurance deduction for the self- employed and repeals an aberration in the Tax Code. It is a clean simple bill that deserves to sail through this House. Mr. Chairman, our Tax Code should be color blind. Neither Congress nor the IRS should be in the business of passing out tax breaks or tax increases based on creed or color. H.R. 831 repeals the only provision in the Tax Code that bases its treatment on skin color. H.R. 831 is a straightforward bill that is paid for without smoke or mirrors. On the other hand, the McDermott substitute offers up one revenue raiser dealing with foreign trusts that its sponsor could not even explain to the Rules Committee. The McDermott substitute also proposes that we keep intact the only provision in the Tax Code that passes out tax breaks based on creed or color. Mr. Chairman, the 25 percent deduction for the self-employed lapsed over a year ago, but after a lot of hemming and hawing the House is only now getting around to extending it permanently. The administration and the then-Democratic majority talked the talk all last year about helping the self-employed, but they never got around to really doing anything about it. Now that the new majority is walking the walk the new minority wants to delay things again. It's time to help the self-employed by permanently extending the deduction and to help the taxpayers by closing a loophole. Mr. Chairman, over 3 million Americans are relying on us to extend the law that allows them to deduct their health insurance costs. The farmers and the self-employed in my district are counting on us to do the right thing. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 831 and to oppose the McDermott substitute. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 831. For once, the House is doing the right thing. The Tax Code provision that gives over 3 million self-employed workers the ability to deduct their health insurance costs lapsed over a year ago. Since then these people have been slowly twisting in the wind, wondering if Congress was going to step up and restore their deduction for the 1994 tax year. This is an issue of the utmost importance to the many small farmers and other self-employed individuals in my congressional district. If Congress does not act before April 15, these individuals will not be able to deduct these costs from their 1994 taxes and will be left high and dry. The House now has the chance to step in and help extract these people from tax limbo. A strong vote today will hopefully help convince those in the other body to take up this matter quickly so that we can get a bill to the President's desk as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 831 also gives us the chance to kill two birds with one stone. To pay for the 25 percent deduction, the bill repeals section 1071 of the Tax Code that allows the FCC to issue tax certificates to companies that sell telecommunications properties to businesses with minority interests. The selling companies are allowed to indefinitely defer taxes on any gains on the sale of radio broadcast facilities. It's part of the code that needs to be repealed. The legislative history of section 1071 makes it clear that Congress originally passed this provision to provide tax deferrals only in instances where a sale or exchange of communications-related property was an involuntary divestiture to comply with the FCC's rules regarding ownership of broadcast facilities. But, in the 1970's, without congressional approval, the FCC broadened the meaning of section 1071 and began allowing tax deferrals for voluntary divestitures that met certain criteria. In 1978, the FCC adopted a policy in which it would grant tax deferrals to companies or individuals who voluntarily sold their controlled interest. Now, section 1071 is the only provision of the tax code that allows a Federal agency to administer what is essentially an entitlement program to big businesses that understand how to unfairly manipulate the rules that promote minority control of media outlets. For instance, under this provision of the code, a recent deal between Viacom, the minority controlled Mitgo Corp., and InterMedia Partners qualifies for a tax deferral and would end up costing the American taxpayers over $600 million. The upshot of the Viacom deal is that Viacom will get an indefinite tax deferral of $640 million, and the African-American owner of Mitgo will walk away from the deal in several years with roughly $5 million in profits after having sold his interest in Viacom's cable television systems to Telecommunications, already the largest cable TV operator in the country. Everybody wins but the taxpayers. The bottom line is that the FCC is now using section 1071 to promote a policy that was never part of the original congressional intent for that part of the code. Without congressional approval, the agency expanded its power to grant tax breaks, and it's now time for Congress to rein in the FCC. Mr. Chairman, I think that the Internal Revenue Code should be color blind. Individuals should not get tax breaks nor should they get taxed more because of their skin color; there should not be carve-outs in the code for businesses just because a minority interest is involved. I see no reason why the Tax Code should not be used as another arm of Affirmative Action and it's time to remove section 1071 from the code. As a side note, Mr. Chairman, I need to note how ironic I find that the House is only now getting around to extending the self-employed health insurance deduction after haggling for over 2 years about how to pass a health care reform that provides health care coverage to more Americans. Ever since the 25-percent deductibility for the self-employed lapsed at the end of 1993, the administration and the then-Democratic majority lamented how they wanted to help these individuals with their health insurance costs. But because of the administration's all-or-nothing strategy on health care reform last year, the self-employed got just that--nothing. At any point over the past 14 months, the administration or the then-majority could have moved legislation at any time to permanently, or even temporarily, extend the 25 percent deduction for the elf-employed. They did not do so. The 25 percent deduction for the self-employed was held hostage because the President refused to consider any health-related legislation except for a radical health care bill. When health care reform legislation died at the end of the last Congress, so did any hopes for passing the 25 percent deduction. Now, finally, it is getting passed. The administration and the then- majority talked a pretty good talk about helping the self-employed pay for health insurance, but it is the new majority that is walking the walk. Frankly, I would like to see the self-employed be able to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance costs. Businesses can claim the full deduction for their employees' insurance costs, and I see no reason why the self-employed should be treated any differently under the Tax Code. There just is not any reason for this disparate treatment. H.R. 831 is only the first step in permanently establishing parity in this area between the self-employed and every other business in America. The sooner that Congress gives the self-employed workers in this country the same tax break that it gives to other businesses, the better. I expect that Chairman Archer will eventually move to give the self-employed the ability to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance costs, and I will do what I can to support him.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, enthusiastic support for H.R. 2, the long overdue line-item veto bill that we are considering today. Persistence does pay off. When I came to Washington, a little over 8 years ago, the first two pieces of legislation I cosponsored were the balanced budget amendment--which we finally passed the week before last--and the line- item veto--which we are going to pass today. And it's about time. The balanced budget amendment will give Congress the budgetary backbone it has always lacked. And the line-item veto that we pass today will give the President the scalpel he has always needed to trim out unnecessary spending from major appropriations bills. It's time for the Christmas tree to come down. The line-item veto will do that. It's time to take the pork out of the barrel. The line-item veto will do that. It's time to establish a rational way for the President of the United States to strip wasteful, special interest or local interest projects out of omnibus spending bills. The line-item veto will do that. It is not cure-all. Nobody claims that it is. By itself, it won't balance the budget. But this bill will give the President a very valuable tool that will help him cut Federal spending, weed out Federal waste and root out Federal boondoggles. That might not balance the budget--but it will reduce spending and it will help restore the confidence of the American people that the system works. Considering the size of our Nation's national debt, there is simply no way that we can refuse to take advantage of such a promising tool. It would be foolhardy to turn back now that we are so close. There is no magic or voodoo or smoke and mirrors here. We know the line-item veto works. We have seen it work at the State level. 43 Governors have--and use--the line-item veto authority. It works. This is not a partisan issue. Presidents of both parties get the same authority. It is a good government issue. And I urge my colleagues--of both parties--to join me in supporting this measure and give the President of the United States the line-item veto authority. In November, the American people made it very clear that they want a leaner, cleaner, smaller Federal Government. The line-item veto will be a great help in achieving that goal.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, article I of the U.S. Constitution vests the power of the purse in the Congress. Unfortunately, the President of the United States has taken it upon himself to do an end run around the Constitution, the Congress, and the American people to bail out Mexico. Mr. Clinton has pushed the barriers past the breaking point. He is basing his power grab on a twisted reading of his authority under the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. That is the law which established the Exchange Stabilization Fund that Mr. Clinton has raided to save Mexico. The Exchange Stabilization Fund was not meant for the kind of shenanigans that Mr. Clinton is trying to pull. It was designed to ensure that we would have an orderly and stable system of exchange rates. In other words, the Gold Reserve Act gives the President authority to stabilize the U.S. dollar and protect its value. It does not give the President the authority to prop up the currency of Mexico. It seems that Mr. Clinton needs to take a refresher course in constitutional law. Only Congress has the authority to appropriate money. Apparently, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, doesn't think too much of Mr. Clinton's bailout scheme either. The Washington Times reported on February 1 that the Exchange Stabilization Fund, the IMF and the BIS do not have the resources to deal with Mexico's problems. He went on to say that the bailout should be addressed by the political leaders of the country because of its broad implications. Mr. Greenspan is not alone in thinking that this financing scheme is a multibillion-dollar disaster waiting to happen. The Hertigage Foundation had warned that this bailout was a bad deal as early as January 25. A study by Heritage warned, The proposed loan guarantees may bail out Mexico this year, but they will not prevent another crisis unless the Mexican Government corrects the fundamental structural problems that caused the peso's collapse. Our financial partners in Europe seem to understand the problem. When it came to a vote at the International Monetary Fund, Germany, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland all abstained from voting rather than support Mr. Clinton's plan. I applaud my colleague, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, for pushing the envelope on this issue by introducing a privileged resolution that will put the House on record as to where we stand on this bailout. His resolution will put us on track to determine whether the President has acted outside the scope of his authority. We have all sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States. If the President is wrongly seizing power from the legislative branch, it is our duty to stop him. Mr. Taylor's privileged resolution is just the thing to start the inquiry into what I believe may be the power grab of our time. Congress, not the President or the Courts, is charged with the power to spend the money. shred the Constitution and ignore the will of the Representatives of the American people. We must let everyone know that this body looks out for the interests of the American people, not the Government of Mexico.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the President has proposed that the United States cosign a loan for Mexico to the tune of $40 billion. But is the Government of Mexico a good risk? The Wall Street Journal pointed out in its editorial on January 23, the problem in Mexico is bad economic policy. The Mexican Government borrowed too much and now it is suffering because it cannot meet its payments. That inability to pay has caused a crisis of confidence in the Mexican peso which plunged in value. This, of course, had led to a wave of handwringing by the usual handwringers here in Washington, most of whom were pushing us to support NAFTA just a short time ago. Apparently, the Mexican Government has not yet learned that free financial markets do not reward over-consumption in the form of borrowing in excess of the country's ability to pay. Unfortunately, Mr. Clinton and his economic advisers have not learned that lesson either. We went down this sorry road in the early 1980's when we bailed out the big banks that were too big to fail but which had greedily overextended credit to Mexico and other developing countries. The Clinton administration would have us believe that if we simply pony up the loan guarantee, the Mexican Government will reform its policy of borrowing short term to pay for current consumption. It is quite a leap of faith that Mr. Clinton is asking us to make. And, the leap looks even longer when you know that the Mexican Government does not even acknowledge that it has made a mistake. The Wall Street Journal, again in its January 23 3ditorial, quoted the Mexican Foreign Minister as saying that the markets should not be taken too seriously because they are nothing more than ``15 guys in tennis shoes in their 20's.'' That is hardly the type of attitude that inspires my confidence to guarantee an American bailout for Mexico. It does not seem to this Kentuckian that the working people of the United States should be cosigning a note to save those who made bad investment decisions. The big banks that made those bad decisions and those pension funds that made those bad decisions should bear the losses for their poor judgement, not the taxpayers. A loan from the Federal Government is great--if you can get it. I am certain that Orange County, CA, could use our help. I am sure that the local governments in eastern Kentucky could do with a little help too. We need to concentrate on helping our fellow Americans first. If we want to guarantee loans, we do not need to look beyond the city limits of Washington because our National Capital is in financial trouble. Before we obligate ourselves to a potential $40 billion bailout of Mexico, we must have collateral from them to secure the loan. If the collateral does not cover the full cost of the loan, we should not cosign. My guess is that short of military intervention Mexico will be no more willing to surrender the collateral today than when they would not pay American investors after nationalizing the oil industry. As William Seidman pointed out in his companion article to the Wall Street Journal editorial, ``Insuring a debtor who has a real problem is not likely to be cost free.'' We cannot control the policies of the Mexican Government now anymore than we could in the 1980's; and, those are the policies which must change to restore confidence in the peso. The potential cost of the guarantee is $40 billion regardless of who is ultimately in charge of Mexico's Government. And, I, for one, do not think that it is wise for the United States to underwrite bad decisions by Mexico and big international banks. We should step back and let Mexico settle its problems the old- fashioned, American way: Let the debtor and creditors settle the problem between themselves, without the United States taxpayers taking a $40 billion hit.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yield time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barton substitute. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the balanced budget amendment. It is a step that Congress should have taken before now. The American people are depending on us to take the necessary action to put our financial house in order. Almost exactly 1 year ago I signed a discharge petition to force the Democratic leadership to allow us to vote on a balanced budget amendment that had been locked away. What a difference an election makes. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Henry Hyde the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for making sure that we will get to vote on the balanced budget amendment in a timely manner as the people have indicated that they want. This is a measure that I have supported since the day I arrived in Washington as a freshman Member of this great body. It is a measure that the American people have overwhelmingly called on us to pass. And now, the time has come for us to pass this amendment. Every year we pass a budget that is not balanced and every year we put our children and grandchildren further in debt. No more. Cutting the spending and establishing priorities about how we spend the people's money are ideas whose time have come. In fact, they are past due. Why do we need a balanced budget amendment to do that? We need it because it has become crystal clear that the Congress is not capable of making the cuts to balance the budget without the discipline of a balanced budget amendment. Opponents of the balanced budget amendment have resorted to the same old tired arguments that we can make the tough choices without the amendment. Well, we have not made those choices in over a quarter of a century. Some of the enemies of the amendment have even resorted to trying to scare our senior citizens into believing that a balanced budget amendment would cut Social Security. That simply is not true. As chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, I would not support any measure which would jeopardize the safety and soundness of the Social Security trust fund and the longstanding contract that we have with our senior citizens. That contract was made long before the Contract With America was ever conceived. We must and we will honor it. The balanced budget amendment is the best insurance that I know for protecting the long-term solvency of the Social Security trust fund. Budget deficits and the need to borrow and pay interest on that borrowing are the real threats to Social Security. I suspect that the reason that the spendaholics have taken these low- road attacks on the balanced budget amendment is because they are afraid that their pet pork programs will be found lacking merit when we sit down to decide what we need and what we can live without. What a shame that some would stoop so low as to try to frighten elderly Americans to protect programs that are likely to be found unworthy of our support when deciding how to spend the people's money. We all know that the Social Security trust fund operates in the black. It should not even be a part of this debate. The real issue is whether we will live up to our responsibilities or not. Anyone who does not have the guts to live up to the responsibilities needs to find a new line of work. And they need to stop trying to scare senior citizens. We must reject the business-as-usual approach by the naysayers who have run us into debt over the last quarter century. We have tried it their way and we have huge debts, yearly deficits and interest payments on the debt that eat up 18 percent of each year's budget. It has been a long time coming; but, the time has finally come. I ask my colleagues to let us make this change that will turn our wagon away from the valley of debt and head back toward the economic high ground.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, last week, the owners of major league baseball visited Capitol Hill to urge Members of Congress to leave their exemption from the antitrust laws alone. Many of you may also have seen a letter which went out last week from Acting Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, which outlined a number of reasons that he felt vindicated the existence of the antitrust exemption. I thought it was time that you heard the other side of the story. Mr. Selig, in his letter, insisted that major league baseball does not operate as an economic cartel. That is wrong. Major league baseball operates as a cartel in classic monopoly fashion. The owners, not market forces, dictate how the supply of its product will be allocated. The antitrust exemption shields major league baseball from market forces and makes competition impossible. That sounds like a monopoly to me. Mr. Selig also insists that repeal of the antitrust exemption would not end the baseball strike. Wrong again. All signs point the other way. Don Fehr, the head of the Major League Baseball Players Association, has publicly stated many times that if the exemption were repealed, he would strongly urge the players to end the strike. Mr. Selig insisted that the players should agree to a salary cap because it is good and because it has worked for football and basketball. Wrong yet again. Football and basketball do have salary caps, but those caps were negotiated through the collective bargaining process. The baseball owners want to impose the cap unilaterally. Baseball has a problem because the owners have been unable to reach agreement on how to share revenues between small market teams and large market teams. But, instead of hammering out an agreement, they are now trying to arbtrarily impose a salary cap on the players to force the players to solve the owners' problem for them. Mr. Selig said that the antitrust exemption has not hurt the players. That is as wrong as wrong can be. I know it is hard to feel sorry for baseball players with median salaries of half a million dollars. And it is also true that the baseball players union has been very effective in the past several decades and has been able to win--through collective bargaining--some of the rights that other American workers have been guaranteed by law. But the antitrust exemption does hurt players. It is a constant threat hanging over their heads. The owners know--that because of the exemption--that if they are able to break the union, the players have no place to turn. Mr. Selig, in his letter, insisted that repealing the exemption would hurt baseball, fans, and communities that have franchises. He is wrong again. The other major professional sports do not have an antitrust exemption but franchise movement has been slight. After eight work stoppages in the last 24 years, and the current strike that has destroyed one season and threatens another, it is hard to imagine anyone suggesting that the antitrust exemption is good for the fans. And then Mr. Selig dredged up the old trusty line that repealing and antitrust exemption would destroy the minor leagues. This is a very effective line because minor league teams are scattered around the country and touch the lives and economies of small towns throughout the Nation. But the plain truth of the matter is major league baseball has to have the minor leagues. It traditionally takes longer to develop professional baseball players than football or basketball players. If the minor leagues were done away with, the decline in quality would be devastating to the integrity of the game and destroy baseball. The owners are smart enough not to jeopardize their investments in their teams by letting that happen. major league baseball. Repeal of the exemption does not threaten them in any way. That's a smoke screen. Through it all, I can understand where Mr. Selig is coming from. Major league baseball has to have this exemption removed for the good of the fans, the game, and anybody else that wants a season in 1995.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I, along with my colleagues, Mr. Hastert, Mrs. Kelly, and Mrs. Thurman, and over 125 other Members of Congress, introduced the Senior Citizens' Equity Act aimed at alleviating the financial burdens the Clinton administration has piled on older Americans. This legislation has four main components. First it will allow our seniors to earn more without losing their Social Security benefits. Many older Americans must continue working to pay for life's necessities. Their Social Security benefits simply do not go far enough. Next it would repeal the Clinton tax increase on Social Security benefits. This was one of the most outrageous proposals in his tax bill 2 years ago. Our bill also includes tax incentives for long-term health care and clearly defines the ``adult-only'' housing under the fair housing amendments so retirement communities can continue and grow without fear of discrimination suits. I am committed to seeing this legislation enacted. I especially look forward to working with Chairman Archer on this bill. He has long supported stop punishing older Americans who are contributing to society. I urge the other 314 Members of Congress to join us in supporting the Senior Citizens Equity Act.