Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 242.

Mr. BUNNING. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have three amendments. Since there are so many amendments, I am going to only offer one at this time. It is an amendment I have offered on the floor numerous times on major bills. It has something to do with a serious problem that 12 million American seniors face every year. My amendment puts more dollars in seniors' wallets, which will hopefully stimulate the economy by giving them more expendable income. My amendment would suspend for just 1 year, the year 2009, the increased tax on Social Security benefits that Congress passed in 1993. I have been a strong advocate for eliminating this tax entirely for many years. My amendment would give seniors a 1-year break from this unfair and punitive tax. Let me start with a little background. Historically, Social Security benefits were not taxed by the Federal Government at all. However, in 1983, the Nation was facing an immediate shortfall in the Social Security Program, with the trust funds possibly running out of money in the next couple years. Acting on the recommendations of the Greenspan commission, Congress passed a law in 1983 that began taxing Social Security benefits for the first time. The new law required that 50 percent of a senior's Social Security benefit or Railroad Retirement benefit be taxed if his or her income was above $25,000 or $32,000 for married couples. This tax, over the past 26 years, has been dedicated to shoring up the Social Security system or the Railroad Retirement system. In 1993, when I was a member of the Ways and Means Committee in the House, Congress was faced with a similar problem. This time it was the Medicare trust fund that was going broke. Once again, Congress called on American seniors to help fix this program by instituting another additional tax on Social Security benefits. In 1993, Congress passed a law that required 85 percent of a senior's Social Security benefit be taxed if their income was $34,000 for a single person or $44,000 for a couple. As a Member of the House in 1993, I thought this tax increase was grossly unfair to our senior citizens. On one hand we tell seniors to plan for retirement and on the other hand we tax them for doing that. CRS estimates that there are 12 million seniors paying this tax on 85 percent of their Social Security benefits. Also, since the income levels are not indexed to inflation, many more seniors become burdened each year as we go forward and inflation rises. My amendment is very simple. It gives seniors a break for 1 year from paying this tax. While I would love to see this tax permanently repealed, suspending it for 1 year is a start and a stimulus to get money into the pockets of our senior citizens so they can help stimulate the economy. It would help do it immediately, by allowing millions of seniors to keep more of their Social Security benefits. With wild fluctuations in gas prices and increases in health care and food costs, this tax relief could make a difference to millions of seniors across this country. The amendment holds the Medicare trust fund harmless so the solvency of Medicare is not jeopardized. The amendment is paid for by reducing discretionary spending in the bill, except spending for veterans. In the past, many of my Senate colleagues have supported sense-of- the-Senate amendments to remove this unfair tax. Today, Senators will have an opportunity to vote on actually giving seniors relief and removing this unfair tax for just 1 year, 2009. It is the fair thing to do. I hope my colleagues can support this amendment and support over 12 million seniors who are forced to pay this unfair tax. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, my amendment is simple. It suspends for the year 2009 the tax increase on Social Security benefits that Congress passed in 1993. This increase taxes seniors above certain income levels on 85 percent of their Social Security taxable income. We should not be in the business of taxing Social Security benefits. It is unfair, and it is punitive. CRS estimates that at least 12 million seniors pay this tax. This amendment holds the Medicare trust funds harmless. Joint Tax says the amendment scores at $14.4 billion, so I reduce discretionary spending in the bill, except spending for veterans, by the necessary amount. Now is the time to fix this problem at least for 1 year. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable portion of the Budget Act. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. All right. I will not argue with the Senator from Vermont. I rise today to discuss the nomination of Eric Holder to be U.S. Attorney General. Unfortunately, I cannot support his nomination to this post. While Mr. Holder certainly has the experience and credentials that one would want to see as head of the Department of Justice, his judgment is lacking. As a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, Mr. Holder approved several controversial pardons. First, I wish to mention the case of Marc Rich. At the close of the Clinton administration, a pardon was issued for this infamous fugitive financier. Mr. Rich was charged in the early 1980s with 51 counts of tax fraud for evading more than $48 million in taxes. He was also indicted for conducting illegal oil deals with the Iranian Government at the time Iran was holding 52 U.S. citizens hostage. Mr. Rich then fled the country and allegedly renounced his U.S. citizenship to avoid extradition. This was enough to land him on the FBI's ``Ten Most Wanted List.'' Mr. Holder's recommendation on this pardon of Mr. Rich was ``neutral, leaning favorable.'' Accounts indicate he did this without consulting the prosecutors handling the Rich case in the Southern District of New York. His willingness to push this pardon ahead is troubling, to say the least. The second questionable pardon involving Mr. Holder concerns 16 members of the terrorist group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation, better known as FALN. This radical group supports Puerto Rican independence and was labeled as a terrorist group by the FBI. Between 1974 and 1983, FALN claimed responsibility for more than 120 bombings in the United States. These bombings killed six people and injured many more. Mr. Holder overturned previous denials of clemency for these terrorists. The pardons were also opposed by two U.S. attorneys who prosecuted FALN cases, and by the FBI. According to the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Holder even overruled the Office of the Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice. In fact, Mr. Holder never reached out to opponents of this clemency or one family of the victims. The son of a man killed in an FALN bombing first learned about the pardons from reading the newspaper. I am also very concerned about Mr. Holder's views on second amendment rights. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was consistently vague and would not answer directly on questions regarding the second amendment. I find this to be unsettling and unsatisfactory. However, past statements and actions indicate a nominee who has shown hostility toward the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court decision last year in the Heller case reaffirmed that the second amendment is an individual right, and Mr. Holder opposes this decision. He seems to hold the view that gun possession is not a right, as the Heller case confirmed, but more a privilege or hobby that needs to be strictly regulated. Mr. Holder is supportive of old ideas for gun control that have never proven to make people safer at the expense of taking away their rights. He has indicated he will favor licensing and registering all gun owners, a policy I do not think will sit well with Americans. Lastly, the Attorney General of the United States is the Nation's top law enforcement official. He cannot pick and choose which of our rights he will defend and which ones he will overrun. His views on the second amendment make me very wary of his confirmation to this great position he is being considered to be confirmed to. Coupled with his handling of the Clinton era pardons, I think this nomination is very worrisome. It is unfortunate, but I cannot support this nominee. I will be voting against his confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I need about 7 or 8 minutes.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am not entering into this debate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hatch's amendment be set aside so that I may offer another amendment.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 74.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Hatch from Utah be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. BUNNING. I appreciate their support. When SCHIP was created, I supported the bill and felt it filled a need in our health care system. The bill focused on providing health insurance to low-income children whose parents made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but did not have private health insurance. Many States have done a good job of keeping the focus of their SCHIP programs on low-income children, including Kentucky that only covers children below 200 percent of poverty. However, other States have expanded their SCHIP programs to cover children in families most of us would not consider low income. Some States are even covering adults, including parents and childless adults. These expansions erode the original intent of the program. The Baucus SCHIP bill we are considering today further expands the SCHIP program, including allowing States to cover children in families up to 300 percent of the poverty level. That is $66,000 of income a year for a family of four. Personally, I think 300 percent is too high for SCHIP, and the focus of this reauthorization bill should be reaching those kids who are currently eligible for the program but are not enrolled. The Baucus bill also allows States choosing to cover children above 300 percent of poverty to still get Federal money for their efforts but only at their lower Medicaid matching rate, not the higher SCHIP matching rate. Two States--2 out of 50--however, get a special exemption under this bill and will get their higher SCHIP matching rate for covering children above 300 percent of poverty, specifically New York and New Jersey. New York wants to cover families up to 400 percent of poverty or that is $88,000 a year for a family of four. New Jersey currently covers families up to 350 percent of poverty or $77,000 a year for a family of four. These are certainly not low-income families, and I feel strongly the States should not get additional Federal money for covering families making up to $88,000 a year. My amendment is fairly simple. It simply removes this exemption for New York and New Jersey so they have to play by the same rules all the other 48 States play by. If they go above 300 percent of poverty, they get their Medicaid matching rate but not the higher SCHIP rate. As I have said, I think 300 percent is too high, and if I were writing the bill, I certainly would not allow States to get any Federal money if they were covering families over 300 percent of poverty. However, that is not the bill before us. So my amendment tries to equalize the playing field between the 50 States and be a little more fiscally responsible with taxpayers' dollars. Under my amendment, New York and New Jersey can still choose to cover children above 300 percent, they just will not get the higher SCHIP matching rate. If the people in New York and New Jersey want to cover families making up to $88,000 a year, they should be the ones paying for the coverage, not requiring my citizens in Kentucky and other citizens in all the other 48 States across America to foot the bill. Finally, my amendment takes the savings from reimbursing New York and New Jersey at the Medicaid matching rate and directs that money to more outreach and enrollment dollars so we can get everybody who is eligible for SCHIP enrolled. We are having difficulty doing that. Kentucky only has 85 percent. I do not know how much some of the other States have. But we ought to be able to get to 100 percent of coverage. The other money that is saved by that would allow them to seek out those eligible children under SCHIP. The SCHIP reauthorization should be about making sure low-income children who are eligible for SCHIP are covered, not about covering children in families making up to $88,000 a year. So with my amendment, you have two options: more money for outreach and enrollment and requiring all States to play by the same rules or requiring the people of your State to pay more taxes so that New York and New Jersey can cover families who make $77,000 or $88,000 a year. To me, the choice is simple, and I hope the other Members of the Senate can support my amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, No. 74.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, when I have a chance during the 2 minutes of debate, I will explain what the modification is. I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 47

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have had to modify my amendment slightly because CBO says directing more money to outreach and enrollment creates a score. So I have taken the outreach section out. However, the amendment is still very simple. It removes the exception for New York and New Jersey to cover families above 300 percent of poverty and get the highest SCHIP matching rate. Instead, they would get the lower Medicaid matching rate covering these families like every other State in the Union. So you have a choice today: Require the people of your State to pay more taxes so New York and New Jersey can cover families who make $77,000 or $88,000 or treat every State the same.

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

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I congratulate the members of the Warren County Prevention Partnership, an antidrug group that represented the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the 2009 inaugural parade. I was pleased to learn that such an outstanding organization represented Kentucky on the national stage. The Warren County Prevention Partnership holds the distinct honor of representing Kentucky in three consecutive Presidential inaugurations: 2001, 2005, and 2009. The Warren County Prevention Partnership works for a drug-free America and its ``Reach for Your Dreams'' antidrug and antiviolence program is motivated to help America achieve that goal. I am proud that such a superior association represented Kentucky on such a historical day in our Nation's history, and I support the organization, as well as others that strive for a drug- and violence- free country. I hope that this recognition assists the Warren County Prevention Partnership in getting its message heard by all Americans. Again, I congratulate the members of the Warren County Prevention Partnership on their remarkable feat of representing Kentucky in the past three inaugurations. I hope that its accomplishments inspire others to work for a drug-free America.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate and recognize a distinguished citizen of Kentucky, Mr. George Foreman of Danville, who was recently named Danville Art Citizen of the Year by the Arts Commission of Danville/Boyle County. This prestigious award is meant to identify an individual in the community who has made it possible for the arts to become an integral part in other people's lives. The Arts Commission of Danville/Boyle County issued the first Art Citizen of the Year award in 2004. As managing director of the Norton Center for the Arts and Associate Professor at Centre College, Mr. Foreman has accomplished impressive things, including forming and directing Danville's own Advocate Brass Band, receiving the 1996 Bruce Montgomery Leadership Award, and also founding the Great American Brass Band Festival. There is no doubt that Mr. Foreman's service has made his community a better place because of his dedication to the arts and the citizens of his town. During his years of service, Mr. Foreman has played host to all the major U.S. military bands, who presented their concerts free to the public. He also partnered with Stage One, a children's theatre in Louisville, to bring the Norton Center a children's theatre. Mr. Foreman has made the arts a central focus in his life, and I look forward to his future projects. Once again, I congratulate Mr. Foreman on this award. He is truly an inspiration to all of Kentucky, and I wish him luck on all of his future endeavors.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Carolyn E. ``Betsy'' Flynn of Benton, KY, for her recent appointment to the Federal Reserve Board's Consumer Advisory Council. Mrs. Flynn currently serves as president and vice chairman of Community Financial Services Bank in Benton, KY, which manages around $400 million in assets. This institution has served the Benton community for almost 120 years and Mrs. Flynn has contributed to its success since 1976. For 24 years, Betsy Flynn has also instructed at the Barret School of Banking in Memphis, TN. Her public service record is extensive as well. She has served on several economic development boards, the city council, the chamber of commerce, the tourist commission, and has recently been appointed to the Kentucky Investment Commission. The Consumer Advisory Council serves a vital role in advising the Federal Reserve Board on guidelines under the Consumer Credit Protection Act and issues regarding consumer financial services. Mrs. Flynn's impressive resume provides a solid foundation for her new role on the council. Her expertise in the banking and financial industry will serve her and the advisory council well. I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Mrs. Flynn for her remarkable achievement. Kentucky and the entire country should be proud to have such a distinguished individual serving them.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Timothy Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury. Of the many positions in the Federal Government about to be filled, the Treasury Secretary is among the most critical today. We are confronted by several financial panics and disasters, and one false move by the Secretary of the Treasury could result in years of stagnation and high unemployment. Even before the disclosure of Mr. Geithner's tax problems, I had serious reservations about his nomination. Mr. Geithner has been involved in about every flawed bailout action of the previous administration. He was the front-line regulator in New York when all the so-called financial innovations that have recently brought our markets to their knees became widespread. He went along with all the flawed monetary policy decisions of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, and he stretched the law beyond recognition to bail out Bear Stearns and later AIG. All those actions, or failures to act, raise questions about the nominee's judgment, but his failure to pay his own Social Security and Medicare taxes, despite clear evidence he knew he owed the taxes, reflects negligence or worse toward the law he will be responsible for enforcing. The financial crisis we are in the middle of today did not happen overnight and it could have been prevented. Easy monetary policy under former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan provided the fuel for a speculative asset bubble that burst. Finally, it popped. Mr. Geithner helped Chairman Greenspan keep pouring that fuel on the fire from the day he got to the New York Fed. More careful regulation by Mr. Greenspan, his successor Ben Bernanke, and other regulators could have better contained the damage from the bubble. Mr. Geithner sat at their side from 2003 until now. Yet he raised not one objection to their flawed regulations. Even worse than supporting the flawed Greenspan and Bernanke policies, Mr. Geithner failed himself as a regulator. One of Mr. Geithner's most important jobs was to prevent the collapse of the largest and most important banks. One look at Citigroup today shows how he failed in that job. Although he talked about the great threat or the systemic risk, Mr. Geithner sat idly by as risk became more and more concentrated in the hands of a few large financial institutions and the pricing of risk became detached from reality. Trillions of dollars in savings held by Americans are being destroyed as a result. When the crisis worsened last fall, Mr. Geithner helped craft the $700 billion bailout presented to Congress. The Geithner-Paulson- Bernanke plan, as sold to Congress, was to buy toxic assets to bail out their Wall Street buddies--no strings attached. But soon, Treasury changed course, choosing to take equity in banks--an option explicitly rejected before Congress. Sadly, Mr. Geithner went along with all these decisions. Finally, we have learned that Mr. Geithner is comfortable with giving tax dollars away, but not so much with paying them himself. Documents show he repeatedly acknowledged his tax obligation and then ignored clear instructions to pay. I find Mr. Geithner's explanation that this was a careless mistake unconvincing and unsupported by the facts. His failure to pay what he owed cost Social Security and Medicare more than $34,000, part of which would never have been repaid if Mr. Geithner was not nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury, a position which oversees tax enforcement. And he was able to convince the IRS to refund the penalties they initially charged. I hope Mr. Geithner will remember this experience when considering the tax issues of ordinary Americans. This is all the more unfortunate because America needs a strong and credible Secretary of the Treasury now more than ever. The most recent Secretary treated Congress with borderline contempt and hostility. He was not forthcoming with information or explanations, only marching orders. I do believe Mr. Geithner understands the important role Congress has to play in our economic policies, and until his evasive and unsatisfactory answers about his tax problems, I thought he would at least do a better job than Secretary Paulson at working with Congress. When Mr. Geithner is indeed confirmed--and I know he will be by this body--I hope he will follow through on his promises to be a responsive and respectful Secretary of Treasury to Congress. Mr. President, for all these reasons I have discussed, I cannot, in good conscience, support this nomination. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, today I pay tribute to Carter Industries for their recent accomplishment. Carter Industries was recently awarded the Defense Logistics Agency's, DLA, Business Alliance Award for Outstanding Readiness Support in the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business Category. This agency provides logistics support for our military as well as other nonmilitary agencies. Carter Industries plays a very important role in the DLA's ability to provide clothing to our men and women serving domestically and abroad. Specifically, they provide coveralls for flyers and combat vehicle crewmen, which protect them from fire related injuries. Since 1996, they have manufactured military clothing in a timely fashion have consistently been dependable for our military. Located in Olive Hill, KY, in the eastern part of my State, Carter Industries also provides valuable jobs for Kentuckians in their efforts to support our men and women in uniform. I now ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Carter Industries for their recent achievement and commitment to our military. They deserve proper recognition for their service to our great Nation.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, this is a day for all Kentuckians and Americans to celebrate the man I proudly call my best friend in the Senate. Today we mark an historic occasion for the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Senate, as my colleague, my friend, and my party's leader, Mitch McConnell, becomes the longest serving Senator in Kentucky history. Back in 1984, when Mitch first won election to this Chamber by just over 5,000 out of over 1.2 million votes cast, some may have doubted that the Jefferson County judge executive and newly-elected Senator would go on to become the leader and statesman he is today. But some of us had little doubt. It was easy to tell Mitch was special from the beginning. In 1984, he was the only Republican challenger in the country to defeat a Democratic incumbent in a Senate race. In Kentucky he was also the first Republican to win a statewide race since 1968. Mitch went on to prove that his initial victory was not just luck. Some of my friends may not know what a prominent role Mitch has played in Kentucky's political history. He has helped to build the thriving two-party political system that Kentucky has today. Mitch worked with the focused determination that is his trademark here in the Senate and aggressively recruited Republican candidates at every level throughout the State. He made his case to the people of Kentucky, explaining his philosophy and his mission. As a Republican, he was certainly swimming upstream at first. But over time, the people responded. Twenty-four years later, he remains as popular as ever back home. Last November, Kentuckians elected him to a record fifth term and awarded him nearly 1 million votes the most ever won by a Kentuckian in a statewide race. And why shouldn't Kentucky continue to send Mitch McConnell to our Nation's Capital to fight for them? Look at all he has accomplished on their behalf. No. 1 on the list is his effort to pass the tobacco buyout one of the most significant events in the agricultural history of Kentucky. I can't stress enough that the tobacco buyout, passed in 2004, has helped the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Kentucky tobacco farmers, their families, and the many towns and communities in which they lived. The tobacco buyout will inject $2.5 billion into Kentucky over 10 years to tobacco quota holders and growers, allowing them to transition to other crops, continue the farming way of life, and provide for their families. After many obstacles and years of frustration, I was proud to work closely with Mitch on this effort to sign the buyout into law. Many thought it couldn't be done. But we knew it could. Then there are the millions of Kentuckians who have benefited from Mitch's work to strengthen higher education. I know firsthand his dedication to Kentucky's universities. He understands that by improving them, we not only help students but entire communities by developing jobs and building a better workforce. During his time in the Senate, he has secured over $320 million for research and infrastructure in Kentucky's universities. And I know he is not finished yet, as that remains one of his highest priorities. All of us on this side of the aisle recognized Mitch's ability, and we have unanimously chosen him to be the Republican leader. Leading the Senate is like herding cats. Senators are not the kind of people who are easily led. We are all used to leading ourselves. It takes a special kind of man to lead all these class-president types, to balance the different personalities and issues that can come out of our conference. It takes vision and clarity to be able to define our principles and our mission, to codify them in a way that every Member can get on board, and to communicate them to our colleagues and the country. And it takes considerable wisdom to maneuver past the many legislative obstacles and parliamentary land mines that lay in wait in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is the right man for the job, and I am proud of him as he continues to lead our party in the Senate. And Kentucky is proud of him, too, as only the second Kentuckian in history and the first in over half a century to become a Senate floor leader. In that role, he is able to do even more for Kentucky. Mitch has graced this Senate with his leadership, commitment to principle, and his trademark determination for 24 years now 8,775 days, to be exact. He is now Kentucky's longest serving Senator. On a personal note, I want to say that I couldn't ask for a better partner in my work to improve our State. Mary and I will always be thankful for his friendship and that of his wife, our great Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao. Kentuckians could not have a better Senator fighting on their behalf. Our State is lucky to have him, and so is this Senate. I congratulate him on reaching this very significant milestone.