Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the IRS reform bill. It is no secret the IRS is out of control. When agents testified before Congress in hoods out of fear of reprisal, and when honest taxpayers are hounded into bankruptcy, it is time for the Congress to step in and say, enough is enough. The bill before us today puts some commonsense boundaries around the IRS. By setting up an oversight board of private sector experts, we force this service to move forward into the 21st century. Considering how the IRS has wasted billions on modernizing its computers, and that the year 2000 computer disaster creeps closer every day, the oversight board is incredibly important. By forcing the IRS, and not the taxpayer, to carry the burden of proof in disputes, we protect legal, law-abiding citizens and end harassing and frivolous claims by maverick agents. By strengthening the confidentiality rules, we make it easier for taxpayers to get professional advice about their returns without having to worry about being tripped up by legal tricks. Mr. Speaker, I think many people have forgotten that the ``S'' in IRS stands for ``service,'' government servicing the taxpayers, not the other way around. By passing this bill today, we remind the IRS of its proper role, and about just who is in charge in America: The taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 303, I call up the bill (H.R. 2676) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restructure and reform the Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago almost to the day, I spoke against and voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement. Unfortunately, time has proven that NAFTA was wrong for America, and by attempting to expand it today, we are only compounding that mistake. How many more jobs do we have to lose until we wake up and smell the Caribbean coffee? If you voted against the NAFTA or you are not happy with the effects that NAFTA has had on America, then do not vote today to expand it and for the CBI countries. Before you vote on this issue, ask yourself three simple questions: Are there any benefits to the American worker in extending NAFTA to the CBI countries? The answer is ``no''. Will extending the NAFTA to Caribbean countries increase American jobs? The answer is no. Will it cost U.S. jobs? The answer is ``yes''. Extending the NAFTA to Central American countries will only cost more hard-working Americans good-paying jobs. In fact, just last month a major textile manufacturer in my State announced that they were cutting 800 jobs from their Campbellsville and Jamestown, KY plants and moving them south of the border. However, instead of saying adios to these jobs, we should be doing all that we can to protect them and keep them in places like Campbellsville and Jamestown, KY. NAFTA was a mistake, the wrong treaty at the wrong time. It is too late to stop NAFTA, but it is not too late to limit the damage. Join me in denying the extension of NAFTA trade benefits to the Caribbean and Central American countries. Vote ``no'' on CBI parity.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I understand that. I am not objecting to the six-member jury pool. The scope of what is investigated is determined prior to the formation of the subcommittee, not after the fact but prior to the fact. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].

Mr. BUNNING. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie]. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, there is no delaying the process by taking the request of the subcommittee back to the full committee. It may take 2 hours. In fact, that is exactly how long it took the last time the subcommittee came back and asked for expansion of powers. It took 2 hours to discuss it before the full committee, and we disposed of it and granted the expansion. Second, there is no possible chance that the bifurcation, or someone investigating and someone adjudicating, would be confused or compromised by this process, because the expansion of the investigation just says to the full committee, here are the facts, we want to go forward on these facts. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] brought up the fact that there are three times that the ranking member and the chairperson, whoever it is, has agreed to an investigation; once on the complaint, once on factfinding, and one other time when they send it to the subcommittee. That is true. But that does not mean that when the subcommittee finds additional information that they want to investigate, that the full committee has ever seen it. I say that as nicely as I can, because in the determination of one case last time, the determination on punishment and compromise and settlement was made by four people. The rest of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct did not get a chance to even hear what the settlement was and what happened, and, therefore, as a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I knew nothing about what happened on the subcommittee level. The respondent can be notified. I think that is a wonderful thing that they have in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct report that we have before us. Let me tell Members, we have to make sure that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and its process remains. All I urge is a ``yes'' vote on the Bunning-Abercrombie amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise, along with the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], my Democratic colleague, to offer an amendment. The amendment is simple. And although it might seem a little technical, it gets right to the core of how an ethics investigation complaint is handled. For my colleagues who have never had the rare pleasure of serving on the Ethics Committee, let me just quickly review how it deals with complaints. After the committee reviews an initial complaint, it can just dismiss the complaint or it can decide that it merits deeper examination, and the committee then begins what is known as a PI, or a preliminary inquiry. In doing so, the committee forms an investigative subcommittee and outlines the scope of the subcommittee's investigative authority. But later, after digging into the complaint, if the subcommittee decides it wants to go beyond the original scope of authority granted to it, the rules are not really concise on how to proceed. This is where our amendment comes in. The task force package would give the subcommittee power to issue subpoenas and the ability to expand its inquiry by a majority vote of the subcommittee members. Our amendment says that the subcommittee, if it decides it wants to expand its inquiry, it has to get the approval of the full committee. We also require the subcommittee to get full committee approval before issuing subpoenas. Let me tell my colleagues how it works presently. If a subcommittee that is investigating an inquiry comes back and decides they want to issue a subpoena, the chairman and ranking member are consulted; and if the chairman and ranking member sign off, there is no vote of the full committee. The problem occurs when the ranking member and chairman disagree on the scope and expansion or issuing a subpoena. That has happened in the last 2 years. When that occurred, the chairman brought the expanded request to the full committee. And since the investigative subcommittee had already voted to expand their scope, when we got to the full committee there was enough votes, including the subcommittee, to expand the inquiry by going back to the full committee. Mr. Chairman, launching an Ethics Committee investigation is very weighty stuff. Expanding the scope or deciding to issue subpoenas are significant and delicate decisions that ought to be made by more than three people. It ought to be made by the full committee. They can just about be the most important decisions made in any case before the Ethics Committee. And these are calls that the entire committee needs to make, not just a handful or three members. It is up to the full committee to decide whether or not to investigate a complaint in the first place. If the subcommittee decides to branch off into new, unchartered waters, it is hard to see why the full committee should not have to sign off on it, too. Let me remind my colleagues that the integrity of the subcommittee in the ethics process is not jeopardized by asking the full committee to include and approve of the investigation going forward in expansion, because we are not making any judgments on the complaints that will be brought back by the full subcommittee for adjudication before the full committee. As a 6-year veteran of the Ethics Committee, I can tell my colleagues we have wrestled with these questions over the years. They are very important. To his credit, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my colleague and head of the investigative subcommittee working on the Speaker's case, came back to the full committee in the last Congress when his subcommittee wanted to expand its scope. There was a difference of opinion between the chairperson and ranking member on what to do, so the chairperson brought to the full committee whether we should expand or whether we should not expand. It was definitely the right thing to do, and it is the way things ought to be handled in the future. As I said at the outset, this probably seems like a small, even nitpicking amendment to some Members. But it really gets to the heart of how the Ethics Committee works and how it investigates complaints. Mr. Chairman, I urge very strong adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, there is a solution to a deadlocked Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It was suggested over the last 2 years many times how to get out of the dilemma of having a 5 to 5 or a 2 to 2 vote, and that was to bring the full force of the House of Representatives to decide whether it was a frivolous or whether it was a serious complaint, to bring it to the floor of the House of Representatives for a disposition of the complaint. Unfortunately, when we brought that up at the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, we also deadlocked on bringing it to the floor. So the fact of the matter is, there is a solution, but even then the majority or the minority, depending on who was in the majority or minority, did not want to bring it to the floor for resolution. I say that because that is a continuing problem.

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

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. First of all, the way it works is that the ranking member and chairman OK subpoenas presently if a subpoena is asked for by the subcommittee chairman and ranking member. Six years we did not have too much work. We spent too much time spinning our wheels. We did not have too much work. The work that we had, we could not resolve issues. Seventy-one of them were resolved on one Member. The subcommittee, the only time I have ever known a six- person subcommittee, was on the bank issue. All subcommittees have been four-person subcommittees over the last 2 years.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2014, the Taxpayer Relief Act. What a difference a few years makes. Just 4 years ago, without a single vote, the Democrat Congress passed a $260-billion tax increase as part of the 1993 Clinton tax bill, the largest tax increase in dollars in our history. Today we vote to cut taxes by about $275 billion over a 10-year period. I think it is fantastic that we have been able to turn around the thinking that goes on in Washington, DC. We absolutely believe that there is going to be an awful lot of people on both sides of the aisle that will support this bill. Because it is good for America, it is good for the ordinary taxpaying person, it is good for kids, it has got so many things that we have worked so hard on that I think America prospers because of this bill. Let us just talk about people that have gone to schools, gone to college and are paying off their student loans. For those, this bill allows those who are paying off student loans to deduct up to $2500 annually in interest expenses. I do not think anybody has talked about that before. This provision is estimated to provide $2.4 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years. A second provision of the bill that makes it easier for students to enroll in Kentucky's prepaid college tuition program, to pay for room and board, as well as tuition. Over 2600 Kentucky students have already set up savings accounts and accrue about $500,000 to help pay for college. This bill allows them to use that for tuition and room and board. I am a little disappointed that the final bill does not provide as much tax relief for withdrawal from these plans as proposed. But we do not get everything in every tax bill. This tax bill has all kinds of relief for the average American taxpayer, the taxpayer between $20,000 and $75,000. Those are the people that want relief. The tax credit for children, the estate tax, or death tax, whatever you want to call it, we give relief there. For anybody who has a family farm or a small business, we have an extra special tax relief, up to $1.3 million. But the $500 tax credit is the key to this bill.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 695.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission and in opposition to the Klug amendment. The amendment cuts ARC highway funding, a key ingredient in the effort to move Appalachia into the Nation's economic mainstream. But, ARC funding has already been cut by almost 50 percent over the past 2 years. There's no more blood to be taken from this stone. ARC serves the poorest and neediest in the country. In Kentucky, it has helped us reach the lonely hollers. It has linked isolated communities. Our interstate highway system largely bypasses areas like eastern Kentucky because of the cost of building roads over the mountains. Except for a few communities on the major east-west routes, most Appalachian communities have had a hard time competing for jobs because of poor access to national markets. But, the Appalachian Development Highway System is helping to link our people with the outside world. The facts speak for themselves. For instance, back in the 1980's, improved transportation and roads created over half a million jobs in local economies in Appalachia. And studies show that counties with major highways have three times the job growth than those without. More and better jobs are helping to make a difference. Since 1960, ARC has helped cut the poverty rate in Appalachia by 50 percent. Infant mortality is down by two-thirds, high school graduations have doubled. Now, over 75 percent of the Appalachian Highway Development System is either completed or under contract. But, key parts of it remain uncompleted. To cut off spending now that we are three-quarters of the way finished just doesn't make sense. Mr. Chairman, most of the poor isolated communities in Kentucky and other States served by ARC desperately need this funding. They are poor, and without it they won't be able to meet Federal match requirements or leverage State or private dollars. It's essential. Passing the Klug amendment today would be a sad setback. Even in these budget balancing times, I don't know many Government programs or agencies that have been cut in half. And certainly not many that have as strong a track record as the Appalachian Regional Commission. Mr. Chairman, I've worked hard over the last 11 years in Congress, fighting wasteful Government spending and opposing programs that don't work. But, ARC isn't one of those programs. In Kentucky ARC has made a difference for the poorest of the poor and for our neediest communities. The Appalachian Regional Commission is one of those rare Government programs that works. It deserves our support. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Klug amendment.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Lowey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Lowey amendment. This is a mean-spirited attack on small farmers throughout the South. We all know Mrs. Lowey and her cosponsors don't like smoking, but this amendment will not stop one person from smoking. It will only hurt small tobacco farmers in my district and throughout the South. The opponents of tobacco always imply that we should not pay farmers to grow tobacco. We do not. Let me repeat that. The Federal Government does not pay subsidies to farmers to grow tobacco. Sure our Government offers to tobacco farmers some of the same programs like crop insurance that are offered to other farmers. But we should offer them the same treatment other farmers receive. Tobacco farmers grow a legal crop. These farmers are not outlaws. They should be treated the same as those who grow corn or raise dairy cattle or any other commodity. Tobacco farmers should be able to purchase the same services almost every other farmer is able to purchase. What this amendment does is single out the small tobacco farmers who are the backbone of the agriculture industry in my State and all over the South. Most of these farmers, including the 14,400 tobacco growers in my district own small family farms. They may have a couple or 5 or even 10 acres of tobacco that they use to offset their other costs in farming. Or maybe they use the extra income to send their children to college. So their children may have it just a little bit easier than they did. Where's the crime? Tobacco is a legal product. We have no right to treat honest taxpaying, hard-working Americans like they are outlaws. They have committed no crime, yet this amendment singles them out and treats them like criminals. This amendment will not do one thing to prevent smoking. It will not punish the big tobacco companies; it will not decrease the deficit. It will only treat small farmers like criminals. It's bad policy--it's unfair and it's wrong.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, ever since I came to Congress in 1987, I have worked hard for a balanced budget. A balanced budget is the finest guarantee that Government will be able to honor its commitments, and I believe we will keep our promise to balance the budget. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security under the Committee on Ways and Means, I have made it my job to protect Social Security and make sure benefits will be there for our senior citizens. Over 43 million people, 43 million, receive Social Security benefits overall. Social Security makes up 40 percent of all the retirement income in this country--40 percent. We cannot desert the people who have worked for 20, 30, 40, 50 years and will soon retire. We must keep our promises. We must not jeopardize their benefits. That is why I am not going to vote for the Budget Enforcement Act. The fact is the bill caps entitlements, including Social Security. If the Social Security cap is breached, the bill specifies that any cost- of-living adjustment be reduced or eliminated as a first step toward eliminating that breach. This just is not right and it is not fair. As we all know, Social Security has the largest, best organized, most vocal constituency of any program. Americans are not looking for any nifty fixes to ensure the future of Social Security. Americans want real reform based on informed, thorough, and deliberative debate. Such a debate is happening now in the Subcommittee on Social Security through an ongoing hearing series on the future of Social Security for this generation and the next. We have already held five hearings. Social Security must not be the subject of an arbitrary cap. We must step up to the challenge and to our responsibility to protect the future of all Americans through real Social Security reform. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Budget Enforcement Act.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Taxpayers Relief Act. It has been 16 years since Americans got real tax relief. Now it is time we start letting them keep more of their own money instead of being forced to send it to Washington, D.C. By giving families a child tax credit, by cutting the death tax that ruins small business and family-owned farms, by cutting capital gains taxes for families who sell their homes, by making education more affordable, we are saying that Washington needs to tax less so Americans can spend more. Two specific parts of this package that I have been pushing really help illustrate this point. The first is the tax cut for withdrawals from State-run prepaid education plans. This bill lets families who save for their kids' college education to withdraw up to $40,000 tax- free with these plans. This means that in Kentucky, where the families of over 2,600 students are already saving in our plan, it is about to become a whole lot easier to educate their children with this plan. Another exciting part of this tax package is the reform of the home office deduction. Fourteen million men and women, mostly women, are now making a living working at home. But because of the snafu in the tax law, they cannot deduct the expenses like other businesses. At a time when companies are downsizing and workers are striking out on their own, this does not make any sense. We should not be penalizing these entrepreneurs. We ought to be encouraging them. This bill reforms the tax rules to do just that. Last, both of these examples highlight the pivotal ideas behind this bill. We are getting Government off the backs of the people so they can do more on their own. Mr. Chairman, it has been 16 years since the average American got some tax relief. It is time to do more. I support this bill and urge Members to do the same.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my good friend from Michigan, he knows full well that the numbers we use are adjusted gross income numbers and they are factual. And just because Ronald Reagan and George Bush's Treasury Departments made a mistake, it is no sign that the Clinton administration has to continue making the same mistakes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I am especially proud of the Medicare reforms in this bill, about a 7-percent increase over the 5 years, each year. Since Republicans took control of Congress, we have been working very hard to preserve and strengthen and protect Medicare. The bill before us today does save Medicare from bankruptcy for at least the next 10 years and gives us time to figure out a long-term fix for the problem. But I think the most exciting part of this package is that it gives seniors more choices in picking the health care plan that best fits their needs. I know some of the seniors like what they have right now. They do not want to change a thing. Fine. They do not have to move off Medicare part A or part B. They can simply do what they have been doing. But if they want to change, seniors will now be able to shop around for a PPO, an HMO, a medical savings account, another health care plan that covers something that Medicare does not cover right now like prescription drugs or eye glasses. And it will be paid for by Medicare. They might even be able to choose a new policy that allows them to get rid of Medigap supplemental plans that they are paying extra for right now. In rural States like Kentucky, where folks sometimes do not have as many health options, this bill enables doctors and hospitals and other providers to band together to set up provider service networks to give seniors even more choices. Letting seniors choose, forcing health care providers to compete for their business are the keys in this Medicare reform package. This holds down the cost and saves enough money to keep Medicare going for years. Of course, we also save a lot of money by making other important changes like reforming the medical malpractice rules and cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse. But by empowering seniors, by giving them more choices, we take the biggest strides towards reforming and saving Medicare. By exercising the power to choose, seniors themselves will do most towards saving Medicare; they, not the Washington bureaucrats, will control their own futures. I urge support of this bill and all the good things in it.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.