Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the pending amendment, No. 232, offered by Senator Snowe. The language is not germane to the budget resolution before us. Therefore, I raise the point of order under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Motion to Waive the Budget Act

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Not very long, Mr. President.

Mr. BUNNING. The second wave would be to take down the missile defenses. Let me give you a little background. In 1991, we had a briefing in the House of Representatives by Dick Cheney, who was Secretary of Defense, and by Colin Powell, who was the head of the Joint Chiefs. They both said the same thing: The worst thing we can do is to send ground troops into Bosnia and Kosovo or any of that area, because of the logistics, because of the terrain, because of the weather. One of the things that they also said was that airstrikes would be very questionable. The reason they were going to be questionable was that the sophistication of the missile defenses and of the air defenses of the Serbs was much better than many other places. The terrain is much more difficult. What we are doing is wrong. What the President asked us to do at the 11th hour is wrong. We should not be going into an independent nation's civil war and imposing our will, no matter what the situation is. Now, the Senator from Oklahoma brought up many other places we could be intervening that we could save more lives--many places in Africa. If we expend the same amount of dollars like we are going to expend in Kosovo, we could save many more lives. This attack is premeditated and the Congress is an afterthought. They want us to agree to it after they have already decided to go. This is a great institution, the Senate. I have come to love it in a very short time. These debates should be before the fact, not after the administration has already made up their mind to bomb. The same is true about sending ground troops. I want to ask President Clinton these questions: What vital American security interests are at stake? What is the long-term strategy for the region? Not only do we bomb one wave and a second wave, and a third request is to send in 4,000 additional men and women from the United States in ground troops. What is the long-term strategy for the region? How do we get in and how do we get out? How long will the troops be deployed? What is their mission? What is the mission they are supposed to accomplish? Will we be forced to deploy more ground troops if the 4,000 are not sufficient? Will foreign commanders be commanding our troops under NATO? What are the rules of engagement? How will the mission be paid for? What valuable dollars will be taken away from military readiness accounts to pay for this? What is our exit strategy? President Clinton, you have not answered these questions. You have not come before the Congress of the United States and asked for our help. I think it is essential that you do so before you send one American into harm's way when you have not proven the need to do it. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUNNING. I am more than happy to yield.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, this resolution which is about to come before the Senate will be something we should have voted on maybe 2 weeks ago. Unfortunately, we are voting on it under an extreme timeframe, and I think that is unfortunate for all of us. If there are negotiations that have really gone on, it has been one- sided. The Serbs have never sat down and really negotiated in good faith with anyone. Only because they were asked to show up at the table, they showed up for a short time and left immediately. Now the debate has shifted and is not about peacekeeping, not about deploying peacekeepers anymore; it is about going to war with a foreign government. NATO, the United Nations, have never gone to war in a civil war situation. That is what we are about to do, and we have been consulted to the point of being told exactly what the President intends to do, whether or not--whether or not--we agree or disagree. In 1991, President Bush came to the House and to the Senate and asked for specific resolutions to go to war to defend Kuwait against Iraqi invasion. It was a major vote to go to war in the House. It was a very narrow vote in the Senate. I think by five votes they voted to support President Bush. I read on the Internet today what was supposed to be a private briefing that we all had at lunch by the Secretary of Defense and by the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That private personal briefing was totally on the Internet this afternoon. Let me tell my colleagues what it said so everybody in the United States can understand exactly what is going to happen. There will be two different types of airstrikes. There will be a preliminary airstrike--and this is on the Internet; all you have to do is look it up--two kinds of airstrikes to force Belgrade into accepting NATO ground troops. The first strike would be a demonstration strike by air- and sea- launched cruise missiles to soften up Milosevic to know that we are really serious about this. Then there would be a pause to give the Serbian leadership a chance to realize that we are serious. If the Serbs do not comply, there would be a second wave of strikes that would be targeted to air defense and missile installations by the same type of military hardware. In fact, 55 percent, or a little less, of all of the airstrikes done will be 70 percent by U.S. hardware and, if we use aircraft, 54 percent of it exactly will be by U.S. aircraft. This is in the middle of Europe. This is not at our borders in Mexico or Canada.

Mr. BUNNING. No.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. In 1995, when I served in the House of Representatives, I and a large bipartisan majority supported a resolution which called for President Clinton to obtain congressional authorization before deploying troops to Bosnia. That resolution passed by a vote of 315 yeas to 103 nays. Yet, despite that vote, President Clinton went ahead with a large- scale and long-term deployment of tens of thousands of troops to Bosnia without congressional authorization or any meaningful debate. Back then, President Clinton spoke to us and promised us all that we would have a well-defined mission with a clear exit strategy. But even today there are no details on getting our troops out of Bosnia. We are still there and President Clinton has spent approximately $12 billion on that mission without ever including Bosnia funds in his budget. As a result, he is draining crucial defense resources from other critical areas and further putting our soldiers in harm's way. We still have almost 7,000 troops in Bosnia and we are all unsure of what their exact mission really is and when, if ever, they can come home to their families. So much for a clearly defined mission and exit strategy. But now, all I can say is, ``deja vu'' and ``here we go again.'' Right now, American troops are deployed all over the globe in over 30 nations on missions of questionable value and unclear rules of engagement. And now, President Clinton is about to scatter roughly 4,000 more troops to intervene in Kosovo under a NATO mission to enforce a peace agreement. But there is no peace agreement to enforce because one does not exist. The Serbs and the Albanians have been fighting in this southern region of Serbia for centuries. So is it any surprise that earlier this week in France, the Serbs would not accept the Kosovo peace plan that their rival ethnic Albanians have agreed to sign? I do not believe that any amount of American involvement is going to end these ethnic conflicts that have raged for centuries. We have tried to resolve this problem for three years and have gotten nowhere. I do not understand why we think we can end this civil war by sending 4,000 additional troops. President Clinton has not given us any answers as to why sending these troops to Kosovo is so vital. President Clinton can tell us any time. But where is he? He has the bully pulpit. I do not believe it is in our national security interest to get involved once again in another so-called peacekeeping mission in this region. In a few years, Kosovo will take its place in history books, along with Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia, as an example of a foreign policy that has no principled framework. I want to hear from President Clinton as to why this region is of a national security interest to the United States and why he should risk the lives of our young troops by sending them to Kosovo. And where is the European community in all of this? It seems as though we are risking the lives of our soldiers to clean up Europe's backyard. If anyone should take the lead on this intervention, it should definitely be from a European nation. This is Europe's problem, if anyone's, and not ours. Kosovo is not in our backyard. An American soldier's job is to protect America's interests by destroying America's enemies on the battlefield. It is an insult to ask an American soldier to serve as a policeman under the umbrella of some international organization instead of the American flag. There are many questions that President Clinton and his administration need to answer, and we are being left in the dark once again. President Clinton, take these questions seriously. When and how many troops are we deploying and how long will they be there? What is their mission? Will there be more troops deployed if our goals and missions are not met? Will foreign commanders be commanding our troops under this NATO force? What are the rules of engagement? How will this mission be paid for, and will valuable dollars be pulled away from military readiness accounts to pay for this deployment? What, if any, is our exit strategy? As you have heard, President Clinton, I have many questions and I am not alone. You gave us no details and answers with regard to the Bosnia mission, and I fear we, as well, will be given very little, if any, details regarding our involvement in Kosovo. But quite frankly, not getting answers from President Clinton does not surprise me. I do not believe we have a compelling national interest to send troops to Kosovo. If they are sent, we all deserve answers from President Clinton before our troops are sent into another mess for years to come. Our men and women in uniform are ready and willing to defend the interests of this great Nation, but not the interests of other nations. We cannot undermine the oaths they take when they are sworn into the military to serve this great Nation. President Clinton, do your job, and let us know what is happening with Kosovo. God bless our troops. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Thank you.

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

Mr. BUNNING

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

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to make my maiden speech on the floor of the Senate. It is about a subject near and dear to me, protecting and strengthening Social Security for this generation and the next. In the other body, I served on the Social Security Subcommittee for 8 years. Over the last 4 years, I had the privilege of being the chairman. It was the most satisfying task I have had since coming to the Congress. In the subcommittee, we held numerous hearings over the past several years on Social Security reform and how to tackle the looming problem that will be facing us in the next century. I have already introduced my own personal Social Security reform bill. It is called The Social Security for the 21st Century Act. Basically, Social Security reform is a two-sided coin. The first side of the coin is that we must guarantee the benefits that have been promised our older workers, workers who have paid into the program for years. We must assure them that their investment is safe and their benefits will always be there when they are needed. The second side of the coin is that we have to find a way to give younger workers a reason to believe in the program, a reason to believe that they will get a reasonable rate of return on the money they invest in Social Security taxes throughout their working careers. My bill focuses primarily on the second side of the coin. It gives taxpayers a one-time, voluntary option to set aside a small portion of their income that they have to pay into FICA taxes, and to invest this money in their own retirement security account. The Social Security for the 21st Century Act enables them to begin by investing just 2.5 percent of their FICA taxes each year, and slowly increasing this amount by 2.5 percent annually over 20 years until eventually taxpayers can invest one-half of all of their FICA taxes in their own personal retirement security account. In return for choosing to set up a retirement security account, a taxpayer would agree to a 50-percent reduction in Social Security benefits. The most important point about my bill is that it is voluntary, not mandatory. It gives people a choice, and it does not force them to do anything they do not want to do. If they are satisfied with what they have now, they can keep their benefits simply by doing nothing. But, if taxpayer-investors elect to set up a retirement security account, they would be able to manage their investment just like the Government workers do today in the successful Federal employee Thrift Savings Plan. Investors would have the additional choice to stop investing, but they could not do it again later on. They couldn't choose to come back. They would have at least five options for investing their money. They could elect to put their money into a number of investments: stocks, fixed income, Government securities--whatever best meets their needs. There would be an annual open season so they could adjust their portfolios. In short, this would give Americans more control over their futures, and enable them to harness the power of markets and the miracle of compound interest. Now, I know that many Americans, especially older taxpayers, might not want to make any changes at all to Social Security. We should respect that. They have been promised their benefits for years and they have relied on that in good faith. That is the second side of the coin. To protect these folks, and our most vulnerable citizens, my legislation guarantees the Social Security safety net. It does not raise the retirement age, it does not cut benefits, and it does not cut COLAs. But I think that many workers, if given a choice, would opt to set aside some of their money and invest it in a retirement security account. Based on our experience with the Thrift Savings Plan, I think it would be a significant step towards stronger financial security for all Americans. The TSP has been a great success for Federal workers. Over the past 10 years, the three investment choices available to workers in the TSP have average annual rates of return of 17.5 percent, 8.5 percent, and 7.6 percent. That means the worst performing of these three funds, the G fund, which invests strictly in Government securities, has returned over 7 percent annually to investors. That compares very, very well to the 2 to 3 percent annual return that most Americans get for their money that they pay into Social Security. Compounded over decades, the differences in the rates of return are staggering. Under my bill, taxpayers will own their own retirement secured accounts, and they, not the Federal Government, can control how their money is invested. My legislation follows the scrupulous conflict of interest rules that have worked well for the TSP to make sure that Government cannot vote shares of stock or manipulate markets. Best of all, withdrawals from this retirement secured account will be tax free, because we should not need to penalize Americans who successfully plan for their retirement. Congress has wisely moved in recent years to help retirees keep more of their own money. Social Security reform must continue that trend. I believe Social Security reform must be voluntary. It should give taxpayers more, not fewer, investment choices, and it must protect the most vulnerable Americans who are counting on these benefits. It is important to bring as many ideas to the table as possible as part of a national dialogue about Social Security reform. These are the principles I have tried to follow in writing this bill, and I will work with anyone on my legislation and on any other proposals to improve the Social Security system. Mr. President, we have a golden window of opportunity now to reform Social Security. Our economy is the strongest it has been in decades. We have a budget surplus to give us some flexibility in making difficult decisions. Now we have to find the political will. It is a challenge we must meet. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I signed on as a cosponsor of S. 434, Senator Breaux's proposal to equalize the tax treatment for domestic distilleries compared to their foreign competitors. This is a good bill, and I hope it passes Congress. It would help cut unnecessary taxes for our domestic distilleries, and eliminate a competitive advantage that our current tax rules give to foreign distilleries. I will certainly do what I can to help pass Senator Breaux's bill. Mr. President, I am submitting this statement for the Congressional Record to make one thing perfectly clear. In supporting this bill, I want the Administration, and officials at the Treasury Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to understand that by doing so I reject the connection that some have tried to make between the All in bond issue and Section 5010 of the tax code, the wine and flavors tax credit. I know that the suggestion has been made that any revenue loss to the U.S. Treasury caused by changes to the All in Bond rules be offset by repealing Section 5010. I reject that notion because there is no logical link between the two issues; the ``connection'' is a bureaucratic fiction. Some who served with me on the conference committee that helped write the tax provisions in the 1995 Balanced Budget Act will probably remember my successful efforts to eliminate a provision in the Senate bill that would have repealed Section 5010. My position on this matter has not changed, and it is one issue on which I continue to keep a close eye because of its importance to Kentucky.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. This is my first speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I had hoped my opening speech would be about Social Security. This year, in my opinion, we have a golden window of opportunity to reform and strengthen this vital program and I had hoped to use my first comments on the Senate floor to help open the debate on real Social Security reform. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way. Of necessity, my opening speech in this body is about the Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton. It was not my choice! In fact, none of us have much choice in this matter. Here in the U.S. Senate, we have been charged with the responsibility of looking at the facts as presented by the managers from the House of Representatives. Each of us took an oath to do impartial justice. And the Constitution doesn't give us much wiggle room when it comes to choices. The Framers were pretty explicit about out options. If we determine that the President is guilty of the charges as outlined in the two Articles of Impeachment, the penalty is removal from office. We have no other choice. Because we are all political animals, I think it is natural that the legitimacy of this process and the outcome of this debate will be clouded to some degree by the perception that it is a partisan exercise. Many of the President's defenders and many of our friends in the media, in fact, have insisted all along that the whole process has been driven by partisan Republicans who are intent to removing a Democrat President they do not like from office. The difficulty you run into when you start throwing around the term ``partisan'' politics is that is seldom a one-way street. Is it any more ``partisan'' to blindly support the impeachment of a President of the other party than it is to blindly support a President of your own regardless of the facts? Of course not. Just as each of us, in keeping with our oath to do impartial justice, must strive to avoid a partisan, knee-jerk solution to the process, we must also not let ourselves be deterred from doing what we feel is right simply to avoid charges of partisanship. So, hiding behind the charge that the process has been tainted by political partisanship gives us no relief from our responsibility to look at the facts nor does it expand our choices. So, it is the facts that matter. And each of us must weigh them individually. We are not taking about public opinion polls. They should have no bearing on the case at this point. It is a question of facts pure and simple. Each of us must weigh those facts individually. We might reach different conclusions. But if I determine that the president is guilty, and if you determine that the president is guilty, based on those facts we don't have any options. We must vote to convict and to remove the President from office. I am personally convinced that the President is guilty under both of the Articles of Impeachment presented to us by the House Managers. The managers from the House have presented a strong case that President Clinton committed perjury. The circumstantial and supporting evidence is overwhelming that Bill Clinton did lie under oath to the grand jury when he testified about his attorney's use of a false affidavit at his deposition. He lied under oath to the grand jury when he testified about the nature of his relationship with Miss Lewinsky. He lied under oath about what he told his aides about his relationship with Miss Lewinksky. He lied under oath to the grand jury when he testified about the nature of his relationship with Miss Lewinsky. He lied under oath about what he told his aides about his relationship with Miss Lewinsky. He lied under oath to the grand jury about his conversations with Betty Currie. That is perjury. That is a felony. We cannot uphold our reverence for the rule of law and ignore it. The circumstantial and supporting evidence is also overwhelming that the President did willfully obstruct justice when he encouraged Miss Lewinsky to file a affidavit in the Jones case; when he coached Betty Currie on how to respond to questions about his relationship with Miss Lewinsky. When he lied to aides whom he knew would be called as a grand jury witnesses, when he promoted a job search for Miss Lewinsky, and when he encouraged Miss Lewinsky to return the gifts he had given her, he was attempting to obstruct justice. After listening to the facts and the evidence, and after listening to the President's defense team try to refute the charges, I have determined that he is guilty as charged. I have tried to the best of my ability to reach this determination impartially without being biased by my political affiliation. Have I been successful? I believe so. I am encouraged in the belief that I have reached the proper conclusion for the proper reasons by the harsh wording of the resolution being circulated by some of the defenders of the President, senators who oppose impeachment but support a censure resolution. The most recent version of a censure resolution that I have seen admits that the President engaged in shameless, reckless and indefensible conduct. It goes on to say that the President of the United States deliberately misled and deceived the American people and officials of the United States government. It also says that the President gave false or misleading testimony, and impeded discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings and that, as a result, he deserves censure. These are the people who are opposed to the Articles of Impeachment. The Constitution doesn't really give us that kind of choice. If the President is guilty of these charges, he must be convicted and he must be removed from office. Censure is not an option. I would rather be speaking about Social Security but I wasn't given a choice in the matter. I would prefer not to vote to convict any President of Articles of Impeachment. But I don't have a choice in that matter either. If he is guilty, he must be convicted. And I believe he is guilty as charged. There is one central, elemental ingredient that is necessary to the success of our ability, as a nation, to govern ourselves. That is trust. Before a President takes office, he swears a solemn oath, to ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' We accept his word on that. When the Vice President, United States Senators and members of the House of Representatives take office, they are required to take an oath ``to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' We trust that they will live up to that oath. We administer these oaths and we accept them as binding because government, at least in this nation, is, above all else, a matter of trust. Trust is the glue that holds it all together. If that trust is destroyed or tarnished, it seriously undermines the basic foundations of our government. The President's defenders try to excuse him by saying that if he did lie under oath and obstruct justice, he did it to protect himself and his family from personal embarrassment about sexual indiscretions, and somehow this makes the lies all right. It doesn't. When he lied and when he tried to hide his lies from the grand jury, he broke trust with the nation's justice system. He broke faith with the American people. Not only did he break the law, he also violated the sacred trust of the office of the President. And in so doing, he violated his oath of office. And that raises the two Articles of Impeachment to a level that definitely justifies his removal from office. It is a matter of trust. And it leaves us no choice but to vote for conviction.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of impeachment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton that have been recommended to the full House of Representatives by the Judiciary Committee. By now, the charges against the President are known to everyone; perjury in a civil matter--the Paula Jones case; perjury before a criminal grand jury; obstruction of justice; and, abuse of the power of the office of the presidency. These are grave and serious charges against the President, felonies in any court of law in our nation. As many have pointed out in recent months, impeachment, and declaring war, are the most important matters that we in the House can ever consider. We are here today to debate impeachment, and under our Constitution the House has the sole power to impeach a President. And I do think that it's important to keep in mind exactly what impeachment is. Voting to impeach the President is quite different from voting to remove him from office. If the House does impeach the President, it only means that we believe there is enough credible evidence to prove one or more of the charges against the President, and that the matter should then be sent on to the Senate. Then it is up to the other body to conduct a trial and to determine whether or not the President should be removed from office. After studying this matter, I believe the evidence against the President is strong on all of the four counts that have been lodged against him. There is certainly enough in the testimony and material gathered together by the Judiciary Committee to make a compelling case against him. Importantly, all during the Committee's deliberations, the President's defenders never even bothered to contest the evidence. They did make many other arguments against impeachment; the Independent Counsel, Ken Starr had engaged in a partisan witch hunt; the charges brought against the President did not rise to the level of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' required by the Constitution to impeach the President; and, the process followed by the Judiciary Committee was not fair. But, the essential evidence presented by the Committee to the House in support of the Articles of Impeachment have not been refuted. The President's supporters had numerous opportunities to knock down the facts during the Committee's deliberations, or to provide exculpatory evidence of their own that would have cleared the President and disproved the charges made against him. But, in nearly thirty hours of argument against impeachment before the Judiciary Committee, the President's defenders and lawyers were not able to dispel any of the damning evidence against him or provide anything new that would point toward his innocence. The facts and the evidence stand unchallenged, and as such they strongly argue for impeachment. When talking about impeachment, one of the principle arguments the President's supporters have often made is about poll numbers and the will of the people. They claim that since the President is popular among the American public and enjoys high poll numbers, he should not be impeached and should be left in office to complete his term. It is true that the President is popular among Americans, and his poll numbers are strong. The public seems content and optimistic about the future, and they give the President a great deal of credit for the positive mood of our nation and our vibrant economy. But, we are a nation of laws, not polls. As elected representatives in a democracy, we as members of Congress do serve in large part to fulfill the will of the people. We have all been elected and reelected because we listened to the voters. But, the matter before the House today is not simply a question of popular opinion; it is instead a question of constitutional duty. Each member of Congress takes an oath and swears to uphold the Constitution when they take office. They do not swear to uphold the public opinion of the moment, or swear to follow the most current fad. We all swore to uphold the fundamental principles that over the past two centuries have helped make America the greatest nation on Earth. When the Constitution grants the power to impeach the President to the House of Representatives, there is no additional clause in the text that reads ``only in times of high poll numbers'' or ``in times of low public esteem.'' The question before us today is one we must address without concern for politics or popularity. Of course we must listen to the people, but being a public servant does not mean that we use none of our own judgment or ignore the duties we swore to uphold. Impeachment and other grave matters are not to be decided like popularity contests or beauty pageants. Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying that I believe no one here today takes any joy in this process or in the votes we are going to cast soon. The past eleven months have hurt our nation and we need to begin to heal. But we cannot ignore our constitutional duty, and we cannot turn away from hard decisions. With a heavy heart, I will vote to impeach President Clinton.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. It's not perfect, but most of it is good and it deserves our support. This bill helps our farmers who in the past year have had to cope with natural disasters, drought and falling markets around the globe. The $6 billion in tax relief and disaster aid in this bill is the least we can do for them and represents a victory for rural America. One of the best parts of this legislation is the $8 billion it allocates for our national defense. None of us wants to return to the ``Hollow Force'' era of the 1970's when our military was beginning to crumble, and the extra money in the bill before us today will help turn things around. I think that's a victory for the security of all Americans. There has been a lot of talk about the education provisions in this bill, and the extra spending for teachers. Let's be frank. The $1 billion earmarked in this legislation will only pay for about 30,000 new teachers. But, most importantly, the legislation maintains local control of education. It doesn't mandate national testing, and local school boards get to decide what sort of teachers to hire with this new money--special education teachers, elementary instructors, or whoever will help the children most. That's a victory for the American taxpayer of which we should be proud. Congress also protected our Constitution on the census issue. The bill funds the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau through next June, giving the Supreme Court a chance to rule on the question of sampling. The Clinton administration has been pushing this untested, unreliable method of counting our citizens, and the bill we are going to pass today puts the brakes on this end-run around the Constitution until the Supreme Court has had a chance to weigh in. I believe that's a victory for all Americans and our constitutional legacy. For those concerned about economic conditions around the world, the bill appropriates almost $18 billion in funds for the International Monetary Fund to help stabilize the world economy. Even better, the legislation mandates that the IMF adopt meaningful reforms that will help open the doors to that agency and further unleash the powerful force of the free market. I believe that represents a victory for American businesses and consumers. Notably, the legislation strengthens law enforcement's hand in the war on drugs. Funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration was increased, Federal sentences for certain hard drugs were toughened, and the legislation will reinvigorate the National Drug Czar's office and established anti-drug programs like the Drug-Free Communities Act, and the Drug-Free Schools Program. That's a victory for American children who are threatened by drug dealers and thugs. As I said at the beginning, Mr. speaker, this bill isn't perfect. No one--Republicans, Democrats, or the President--got everything they wanted. But, in the end, in the spirit of compromise, I believe our leaders crafted a package that we should support. After 4 years of Republican control of Congress, we understand that we can not pass everything we want because of the President' veto power. Likewise, the President can not get everything he wants because his party is in the minority in Congress. This leads us to where we are today: voting on a bill that is the byproduct of negotiation and legislative give-and- take, a bill that represents not a complete win for any one party as much as it represents a win for the American people. I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Except for declaring war, impeachment is the most serious and sobering issue that the House can consider. The question before us today demands that we act out of statesmanship and not raw, political partisanship. Our history and our Constitution demand the best for us. I have read the referral to the House from the Independent Counsel, Ken Starr, and I believe there is enough evidence to warrant further inquiry by the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee's review of the evidence accumulated by the Independent Counsel indicates that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving the President that constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. The charges are troubling--perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and abuse of power. They are not simply about extra- marital affairs, or making misleading statements. Instead, the allegations touch more profoundly upon claims of criminal conduct. I do not know if all of the allegations in the Starr report are true and factual. But, the charges are serious and some of the claims made against the President are compelling. However, the report represents only one side of the story, and the President deserves the right to exonerate himself before the Judiciary Committee, the full House and the American people. Our Constitution and historical precedent set out a procedure to follow in proceedings such as this, and I believe we must strictly follow the letter of the law. Impeachment is a grave matter, and at this crucial moment in our history we must not rush to judgment. The inquiry by the Judiciary Committee must be orderly, and judicious. But, it must also be expeditious. While I do not think that an arbitrary deadline should be imposed on the panel, for the good of the country I believe it is incumbent upon the Committee to work with all deliberate speed in order to conclude this matter as soon and as fairly as possible. Chairman Hyde's goal of the Committee concluding its work by the end of the year is fair and reasonable. By the same token, I also believe that the President has a duty to work with, and not against, the Judiciary Committee to speedily resolve this matter. The sooner we can conclude these proceedings, the better it will be for the country. Now is not the time for further foot- dragging and delay by anyone. I believe the President was right yesterday when he said members of the House should cast ``a vote of principle and conscience'' on authorizing the impeachment inquiry. I agree. Of all the votes cast in this Congress, this should be one of integrity and honor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 53, the Curt Flood Act, named for the player who challenged the antitrust laws all the way to the Supreme Court. Baseball is the only sport, and just about the only business in America, that is immune from the antitrust laws. Because of an outdated supreme court decision, major league baseball has been operating under a different set of rules than everyone else for the past 75 years. The legislation before us today is very simple: It provides for a limited repeal of that exemption when it comes to labor-management relations. Baseball has had big troubles in recent years, and the antitrust exemption has been the root cause. There has been eight work stoppages in the last three decades, and it is no coincidence that baseball, the only sport that enjoyed such special treatment, has had more strikes and lockouts than all other sports combined. After playing and managing in professional baseball for over 25 years, and serving on the Executive Board of the Players Association, I know firsthand how the exemption distorts player-owner relationships and has contributed to the turmoil in baseball. The exemption effectively removes a negotiating tool from the labor negotiating process and forces both sides to play hardball when it comes to bargaining over contracts. It removes a way for the players to push their grievances, and encourages the owners to take a hard line and reduces their incentive to compromise. Personally, I think this exemption should be repealed altogether. Baseball is a multibillion dollar business that should have to play by the same rules as other sports and businesses. The exemption is anti- competitive and anti-American. But by passing this bill today, and partially repealing the exemption, we provide another avenue for the owners and the players to explore another way to vent steam before calling a strike or staging a lockout. This is a bipartisan consensus bill that the Senate passed without opposition. It is supported by all of the affected parties in baseball, owners, players, and the minor leagues. Everyone agrees that it represents a positive step forward for our national pastime. But most importantly, this legislation represents a win for the fans. Just 4 years ago the players were on strike. The world series was canceled. Baseball seemed doomed. But this year, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has said, baseball has had a renaissance. Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa thrilled us with the home run race. The playoffs are more exciting than ever before. And baseball is back. Fans are returning to baseball, and passing this bill today will help ensure that the game does not spiral backwards, down into the abyss of labor strife. It will help ensure that the fans are not robbed of their right to the greatest game ever invented. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the bill.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Taxpayer Relief Act and targeted tax relief for the middle-class families of this country. Fifty-five percent of this tax cut goes to hard-working American families making less than $75,000, the folks who need it most. Marriage penalty relief for 48 million taxpayers, an average of $243 per couple. One hundred percent deductibility of health insurance costs for self- employed people, over 100,000 just in my State, for small farmers, small business owners that pay for their premiums that are not paid for presently. $24 billion in relief for farmers and small business as the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture just before me so well described. Tax relief for farmers who have carried the loss forward for five years. AMT relief and income-averaging, permanent income-averaging for farmers, five years. And we cut the death tax even further. Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the budget surpluses do not belong to the government. It belongs to the American people. It is their tax dollars that make up the surplus. We should let them keep more of their own money, because they know how to spend it better than the government does. Yesterday we protected Social Security by devoting 90 percent of the surplus to it. Never before had that been done in the history of this great republic. We should do the right thing and give some of the money back to the people that pay it. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, just to respond in a small way to the gentleman from New York, the gentleman from New York voted just last week on the floor of the House of Representatives to spend part of the surplus on agricultural disaster relief. If it is okay for him to spend part of the surplus, why is he proposing to punish farmers and ranchers and others by denying them relief now? Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have devoted myself to protecting and preserving Social Security. The Committee on Ways and Means' Subcommittee on the Social Security, which I chair, has conducted a series of hearings, 11 to be exact, on the future of Social Security for this generation and the next. Our subcommittee has worked to fully explore every option for Social Security reform. The information obtained through these hearings will be invaluable to the Congress as they proceed to save Social Security. And we will save Social Security just like we balanced the budget, reformed welfare, saved Medicare and cut taxes. The President has also worked to advance the Social Security debate, vowing in his State of the Union address to reserve every penny, then $680 billion of future budget surpluses, until Social Security has been strengthened. Unfortunately, however, somewhere between his State of the Union and the drafting of the President's budget proposal this commitment to Social Security got lost in the shuffle. The President's budget did nothing to redirect budget surpluses to Social Security, included no new trust fund investment strategies, no changes in Social Security taxes or spending. It proposed nothing new. That is why in March of this year I introduced legislation to create a new Treasury account, the Protect Social Security Account, into which each year's budget surplus would be deposited. My bill, as introduced, walled off 100 percent of all budget surpluses so that they could not be frittered away on new spending programs. Due to lower inflation, increased corporate taxes and increased income tax revenue from hard- working Americans, the projected surplus we reached is $1.6 trillion. That is an additional 1 trillion since the President's State of the Union. So I say we can do more. We can save Social Security, and we can cut taxes for those Americans who need it most: married couples, farmers, small businesses and senior citizens. Today, using language virtually identical to my original bill, we will pass legislation to wall off 90 percent of the budget surplus until a solution for Social Security is found. While less sounds like less, in this case less is more. Ninety percent of the surplus today is just about 1.4 trillion, nearly double the amount that would have been saved at the time of my original bill. Certainly Social Security has no guarantee of any kind right now, no guarantee of any kind that it will get any of the surplus without some kind of protection like that provided in this bill. The President and Congress will spend the surplus on anything they want. Even the President has already proposed 31 billion in new government spending funded from the very budget surplus he promised to reserve. Americans deserve better than more broken promises. This bill, by including my wall-off provisions, will guarantee in law that 90 percent of the surplus will be held aside to strengthen and protect Social Security. It will guarantee that we have the funds needed to implement Social Security reform when Congress takes action on it. That is 1.4 trillion for Social Security. The Federal Government has never done anything like this. I wanted a hundred percent, but 90 in hand and guaranteed in law is better than a whole roomful of wishes that it was 100 percent. This bill locks in that protection in law. My primary goal in this bill and since I came to Congress is to protect and preserve Social Security. The bill with the wall-off provisions will do more to protect and strengthen Social Security than anything Congress has considered in the 12 years that I have been here. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure everybody to vote in a positive manner on this bill.

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic alternative is not a good deal for Social Security. On the face of it, one might think that putting aside $1.6 trillion in excess FICA taxes seems better than the $1.4 trillion the GOP would reserve at 90 percent of the total budget surplus. But the amendment adds risks to Social Security that are totally unnecessary. The Democratic substitute sends all excess FICA reserves and receipts to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City where the central bankers are to invest them in marketable securities. The Fed's job is to control inflation and provide market liquidity, not invest Social Security funds. This is not the role of the Federal Reserve and only creates a conflict of interest. When the Federal Reserve buys securities to keep financial markets steady, what will it do with the FICA receipts? Will the Fed's first priority first be to stabilize markets or getting the best deal for Social Security? After all, investing FICA funds in marketable securities introduces a new risk, market risk from the changing prices of bonds, from which Social Security, under current Treasury investment practices, is spared. While the Treasury Secretary is ordered in this bill to make up the losses, the trackings of trillions of bonds would be so complex Social Security might not receive what it is due. The Republican plan avoids all this by using the current investment procedures in special Treasury securities that have no price volatility. For all the increased risk in complexities to Social Security, the bill still has the same budgetary outcome as current law. The surplus would still be on the Federal books and still considered Federal money available for Federal purposes according to the Congressional Budget Office. And if there is a budget surplus other than FICA receipts, is it the intention of the minority to give a tax break to the working Americans, as this Congress will do tomorrow in the tax bill, or spend it away? Perhaps, however, the intent of the Democratic proposal is larger than what is written here. Is this the prelude, as some Democrats have proposed, of government bureaucrats investing Social Security funds in the private capital markets? As my colleagues know, Fed Chairman Greenspan fears the interference of government ownership of American businesses and the financial and competitive penalties this could bring to workers and investors. Private investment of Social Security funds is something we should debate as part of the Social Security reform, not a tax bill, and I, for one, want to take no step, no matter how innocuous it might seem now, to give government, not individuals, control over such enormous sums of money. When the President spoke to us about reserving the surplus to save Social Security, I believe he meant all types of excess revenues, not just FICA receipts as in the Democratic bill. Under their amendment, if the surplus gets larger due to the historical rise in individual and business income taxes, not a penny of it will be saved for Social Security. The Republican bill captures every penny of this increase and could actually end up reserving greater amounts than the Democratic plan. Finally, let us put this in perspective. Under current CBO projections, our bill reserves $1.4 trillion over 11 years, and the Democratic plan, $1.6 trillion. For no change in the bottom line, are we willing to have the system take on more risk, alter the income the funds receive and upset the important financial operations of the Federal Reserve? It is just not worth it. The Democrat substitute introduces new risk for Social Security that we do not need. It creates uncertainty that we cannot justify. The Republican bill is straightforward, honest and safe. It sets aside $1.4 million to save Social Security, using tried and true methods. Please stick with the Republican bill.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the Patient Protection Act. This bill is a well-crafted piece of legislation which addresses many of the problems facing our Nation's rapidly changing health care system. What the bill does makes it worth supporting. It strengthens health care plan accountability by providing a system of reviews and appeals, to make sure that Americans who have health insurance get the care they need when they need it; it guarantees patients' choice by ensuring a point of service option, so that patients have the freedom to see the provider of their choice; it expands the availability and affordability of health insurance for millions of Americans through the creation of HealthMarts and Association Health Plans, by creating Community Health Center networks, and by expanding Medical Savings Accounts; it guarantees the right of patients to emergency room service; it guarantees the right of women to have direct access to their OB-GYN; it guarantees parents the right to direct access to pediatricians for their children. These are much-needed improvements, and they are the one big reason to support the Patient Protection Act, the things it does. But there is another reason to support the Patient Protection Act, and that is what it does not do. It does not load down the health care system with a new layer of bureaucracy; it does not guarantee an explosion of unnecessary costs and costly litigation, it puts people into care, and not into courtrooms; and it would not increase the cost of health care dramatically, like the Patients' Bill of Rights would do. Mr. Speaker, it is a very good piece of legislation because of what it does, and even because of what it does not do. I urge my colleagues to support the Patient Protection Act.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. I also would like to strongly support Senate bill 2316, which will ensure that the funds collected over the years by the U.S. Enrichment Corporation for the cleanup of spent uranium canisters in Paducah, Kentucky will be used for their intended purpose. This bill will not only save American taxpayers millions of dollars in possible future cleanup, but more importantly, it protects hundreds of jobs in my State. By passing this bill today, the House will set in motion a plan that will one day lead to the construction and operation of a new uranium cleanup facility in Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio that will treat and recycle depleted uranium hexafluoride. This will clearly make our community safer from this environmental hazard. I am glad to see that the House is taking quick action on this matter, because without our effort the nearly $400 million in cleanup money that has been set aside by the USEC could be lost. I would like to thank the majority leader; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); and all of those that had something to do with bringing this bill to the floor in this expedited manner.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report for the Educational Savings Act. I am especially gratified that the report includes $1.5 billion in tax cuts for students enrolled in state prepaid tuition plans. And I thank my chairman the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for his help with this. Last year, in the Balanced Budget Act, we cut taxes by $2 billion for these families. Now this report wisely gives further tax relief to those families who are investing for their children's future. Unfortunately, it sounds like the President is going to veto this bill. That would be a real shame, Mr. President. These tax cuts would help over 3,000 Kentucky students to attend college. Their families have already invested over $7 million in our state prepaid tuition plan, and I think we need to do what we can to help them. Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for the conference report and for these students who need our help.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from Michigan has read the bill. The sixteenth line of the second page, ``In order to ensure an easy transition and effective implementation, the Congress hereby declares that any new Federal tax system should be approved by the Congress in its final form no later than July 4, 2002.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the motion.