Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, there is no objection to the request.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Karen Caldwell to be a Federal District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Karen has the qualities that will make her a fine judge--knowledge of the law, calm and respected demeanor, and obvious intelligence. She has had an outstanding professional career that has prepared her well to sit on the bench. She is a former Assistant U.S. attorney for the district, rising to become Deputy Chief of the Civil Division. From 1991 to 1993, she served as the U.S. attorney for the eastern district. Among the notable prosecutions during her tenure was her office's prosecution as part of Operation Boptrot, the Federal sting operation that led to the conviction of a number of public officials and lobbyists in Kentucky. It was a difficult and complex case, both legally and politically, and she handled it with great skill. In short, Karen's work helped restore public confidence in elected officials in our Commonwealth. Since leaving the U.S. attorney's post, Karen has specialized in complex civil and criminal litigation at one of Kentucky's leading firms. She has won numerous awards for the quality of her work, and has truly made a mark in Kentucky. It is only natural now that she rise to the bench. I urge the Senate to support this nomination. The President made a great choice by selecting her for the bench, and she is going to be a fine judge, not just for the people of the eastern district, but for our entire Nation.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, the Armed Services Committee approved an authorization increase of $10 million over the budget request for Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology ``to support the goals of Army transformation''. The report states that ``of this amount, $5 million would be used for research into lightweight steels, vehicle weight and cost reduction, corrosion control, and vehicle architecture optimization. The committee notes that novel light truck architectures combined with advanced structural materials could reduce vehicle weight without degrading performance or increasing costs, and could support the Army's transformation into a lighter, more lethal, survivable and tactically mobile force.'' This increase refers to the research effort, competitively selected by the Army in fiscal year 1999, titled ``Improved Materials and Powertrain Architectures for 21th Century Trucks'' (IMPACT). The IMPACT program will cover light/medium military payloads up to 5 tons, including applications with an open or closed bed configuration. Kentucky is a large commercial producer and Army Base user of such vehicles, and through the University of Louisville's involvement in this effort, plays an important research role in their design and testing. The military will realize significant procurement and O&M cost savings as a result.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I want to make sure I get to close. Do we have any other speakers?

Mr. BUNNING. Yes.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, Senator Dorgan will be the first speaker.

Mr. BUNNING. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. BUNNING. I yield Senator Ted Stevens 1 minute.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, we are embarking on a new war like nobody has ever seen before. We are not experts in knowing what the landscape of the 21st century warfare will look like. None of us knows for certain that we need to downsize our military infrastructure under these extraordinary circumstances. I have heard it said here today, and before, that DOD has a certain amount of savings. I show you two reports. One is from the GAO on military base closings. In the report, it says: The estimates are imprecise and should be reviewed as rough approximations and not likely savings. These prospects apply as well to the Department's updated net savings estimates. So even the GAO and the CBO say the savings are not really savings because they didn't consider everything. They can't even back up their own numbers. If you agree with DOD on savings--and they also say the cost upfront actually is more, which was brought out by Senator Stevens. BRAC has been a political football. Anybody who has been involved in it knows it has been a political football. First it was the commission; then it was the administration. So it cannot be done objectively. I know our good chairman and the ranking member have tried to do that in this BRAC round. But I am not sure it won't become a political football again. So that is BRAC as usual, and I am not for BRAC as usual. The new home security cabinet, as Senator Lott has said, may decide they need these bases to make our homeland secure. I think it is very good that we keep in mind that when Governor Ridge is confirmed, he may decide how important certain bases are. Our economy and BRAC don't go hand in hand. If we slow it down, it may fall off the edge. I know that is not as necessary a reason, but it is a reason for not doing BRAC at this time. The DOD's Quadrennial Defense Review is not even completed. It is premature to act on BRAC when we don't even know what the quadrennial report proposes regarding our infrastructure. Please vote no on the tabling motion that is coming.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the full committee for giving me an opportunity to offer this amendment on behalf of 20 cosponsors. This amendment is a straightforward amendment. The underlying bill authorizes a base closure realignment in the year 2003. This amendment simply strikes that language, that provision. There are a number of good reasons why we should not move ahead with another BRAC at this time. Most important, there has always been the uncertainty as to whether or not previous rounds of BRAC have actually saved the military and the taxpayers any money. This has always been my main concern with proposals for future BRACs. I will go further into this aspect in a moment, but right now I, and many others, have a bigger concern with future BRAC rounds, and it unfortunately stems from the awful terrorist attacks on September 11. Now more than ever, we should hold off further downsizing of our military infrastructure as we analyze how to fight the first war of the 21st century. Last week, President Bush laid it all out for us. We are gearing up for war. It will be a different kind of war and different from any battles this Nation has ever fought. Its future is unknown. The course of the conflict is uncharted. The strengths we will use and need are unforeseen. The President has warned us that victory is not going to come quickly and it is not going to come without pain. There will be casualties, and our will and resources will be tested, probably for many years to come. The fight will require force. It may require more and a different kind of training at our military posts and bases. This war may change from the United States battling only terrorist organizations to the United States battling armies of nations harboring terrorists. Because of this uncertainty, it is unwise to begin hacking away at our military infrastructure. I am not here to chant gloom and doom. I know in the end we are going to triumph over evil, but at this point in time, we have to ask a fundamental question: Is now the time to cut bases and to reduce our military infrastructure? The answer is a clear and resounding no. President Bush said recently the course of this conflict is unknown. If this course is unknown, then it must be unwise to move ahead with another BRAC round until we have a clearer picture of where we are going and how we are going to get there. Now is not the time to further authorize the reduction of our military infrastructure. More than ever, we must focus on security and how to maximize our resources. We should not leap before we are even able to look. We are venturing into the unknown and attempting to survey the landscape of 21st century warfare. We should not go blindly or with one hand tied behind our back in the name of so-called efficiency and cost savings. During markup of this bill, the Readiness Subcommittee heard from our professional staff on the BRAC issue. They were unable to pinpoint any definitive cost savings from the prior BRAC rounds. In fact, they could not provide any firm details because DOD could not provide them definitive numbers from previous BRAC rounds. We have heard talk about so-called savings numbers from DOD here and there, but when the rubber hits the road, DOD is unable to provide these savings with cold, hard numbers. I and many others have asked the Department of Defense many times to provide detailed data showing savings from previous BRAC rounds. If it is there, we should definitely take a look at it, but until we see real numbers, supporting another BRAC is only a shot in the dark. CRS, CBO, and GAO have all been asked to find real savings, and they also have had a tough time finding consistent and detailed savings numbers. They quote DOD projections and predictions as their source, but they admit that DOD has been unable to document any detailed underlying savings. We all support efficiency in not only our military but throughout the Federal Government. But after the attacks of September 11, the landscape for me and others has changed from one of efficiency to one of security. In these turbulent times, we need serious numbers before we can even contemplate another BRAC, let alone approve it. In conclusion, it seems to me at this point that it would be foolish and dangerous to go ahead with another BRAC. When you boil it down, it is pretty simple: We are entering a new type of conflict in which we are not sure what resources are going to be needed. So how can we take a chance on eliminating resources that may be vital to our struggle against terrorism? In fact, last week, the House of Representatives withdrew a BRAC amendment to their fiscal year DOD authorization bill. It is clear that support in the House for another BRAC round evaporated after the attacks of September 11. If the Senate bill includes another BRAC round, this could make for a contentious issue in conference, and now is not the time for prolonged contentious debate. I ask my colleagues' support for this amendment. In light of the September 11 terrorist attacks, we need to act prudently and carefully. Authorizing another BRAC round is neither. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I want to read from Secretary Rumsfeld's letter of September 21. I want to read a portion of it because it says in the third paragraph: ``While our further future needs as to base closure are uncertain and are strategically dependent,'' he says we must simply go ahead and do it. I firmly and strongly disagree with Secretary Rumsfeld. If base closures are uncertain and strategically dependent, then now is not the time when we are planning for a full, all-out war against terrorism. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUNNING. Thank you.

Mr. BUNNING. As soon as I speak with him, I will get back to you.

Mr. BUNNING. I really have not had a chance to talk to the minority leader.

Mr. BUNNING. May I state my objection?

Mr. BUNNING. I object.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, unfortunately I must rise today to oppose the nomination of Roger Ferguson to be a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. I usually don't vote against presidential nominees. I believe, in most cases, that we should defer to the president and allow him to appoint his own people. However, there are times when I am forced to stand up and to vote against the president. I do not enjoy doing this, but I have no doubt that I will be making the right vote for Kentucky and the nation. Roger Ferguson is a very accomplished man. He is quite qualified to be a Federal Reserve Governor. He is currently vice chairman. But I cannot, in good conscience, support his nomination for a 14-year term. It is not Dr. Ferguson's qualifications that concern me; it is his judgment that does. Right now we are in an economic slowdown. The evidence was there last September. But Chairman Greenspan and the Federal Reserve did not act in September. They did not act in October. They did not act in November. They did not act in December. They did finally act in January. Since then, the Fed, to its credit, has continued to move the federal funds rate, cutting it 6 times. But the damage has already been done. What concerns me about Dr. Ferguson is the response he gave to me in the Banking Committee when I asked him this question: ``Hindsight being 20/20, do you think the Fed waited too long to reduce the target federal funds rate?'' Dr. Ferguson's response was: ``No, sir. Even with 20/20 hindsight, I do not believe that to be the case.'' Mr. President, I simply can't understand that answer. Knowing what we know now, it just doesn't make sense. During that time last year, practically every single economic indicator was headed straight down. The markets, especially the NASDAQ were dropping, causing wealth to be taken out of the economy. Corporations were announcing layoffs, not just dot-coms, but companies like GE. The index of leading economic indicators started to fall. And consumer confidence started dropping. And GDP slowed markedly. Anyone I've talked to since then, now says that, looking back, it's pretty clear that the Fed was slow at the switch in recognizing and reacting to the warning signs. Six rate cuts this year is clear evidence of this. That's the most in such a short period of time in decades, and shows just how precarious a position our economy was in. We're still having trouble turning the corner, and even now there are warning signs that our economic slowdown is causing a ripple effect around the globe. Who knows what would have happened if the Fed had cut rates sooner. If Dr. Ferguson is confirmed, I'm afraid we probably never will. That truly worries me. I am afraid that he is looking over his shoulder already, and is concerned about how the Fed Chairman is going to react to his remarks. I think Dr. Ferguson was afraid to criticize the chairman and to upset the apple cart. But I believe that we need strong, independent Fed Governors who are willing to challenge the status quo and to make the hard call. I am afraid that Dr. Ferguson does not fit this bill. We do not need Alan Greenspan clones who will never question the chairman, who will never take the contrary view. What we need are Fed nominees who will be independent. We need nominees who will stand up to the chairman if they believe he is wrong. I do not believe Dr. Ferguson will assert that independence. I believe his answer to my question in the Banking Committee proves that. For this reason, I reluctantly vote ``no'' on the nomination of Dr. Roger Ferguson, to a 14-year term as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Gramm amendment and ask unanimous consent to be listed as a cosponsor.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I will take the time Senator Gramm has and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. BUNNING. Today in the United States we do not mandate that any employer or business provide health insurance. We do not force them to buy it for themselves or their employees. We let the employer make this decision. And employers all across the United States do provide health care insurance that covers over 160 million people. These employers do not have to provide that health care. They do this voluntarily for a number of reasons. Some actually do it because they care about their employees, but most do it because it is good business--it helps attract employees to come to work for them. But regardless of why these employers offer health benefits, the important factor is that they do this voluntarily. There is no employer mandate in America. We had that debate in 1994 during the argument about the Clinton health bill, and it was clear that everyone--the American people and American business--wanted to keep our voluntary system. But if the bill before us today becomes law, that could all change. In spite of what the Senator from Massachusetts said, businesses--big and small--all over America would stop offering health insurance benefits to their employees. And the reason they would stop can be summed up in one word--lawsuits. The simple fact is that the Kennedy-McCain bill would expose employers who provide health care insurance coverage to their employees to lawsuits. I have heard some supporters of this bill claim that employers are protected from lawsuits in this bill. We just heard the good Senator from Massachusetts say that. They say that this bill protects our current system. They point out that on page 144 of the Kennedy-McCain bill that there is a section in bold headline that reads: ``Exclusion of Employers and Other Plan Sponsors.'' But what they don't tell you is that on the very next page the bill reads, as clear as day: ``. . . A Cause of Action May Rise Against an Employer . . . .'' After that there are four pages explaining when an employer can be sued. That means that while this bill does exclude suits against doctors and hospitals and other providers, it does not exempt suits against employers who purchase health insurance. In fact, the bill exposes employers who provide health care insurance to both State and Federal lawsuits. It exposes them to unlimited economic damages, unlimited noneconomic damages, unlimited punitive damages in State court, and $5 million in damages in Federal court. Ladies and gentlemen, that is an awful lot of lawsuits. I believe that this exposure to liability in the Kennedy-McCain bill will scare employers away from providing health insurance. Instead of providing coverage, one of two things is going to happen if this bill becomes law. Employers are either going to drop their coverage altogether or they will give their employees cash or some sort of voucher and wish them well in searching for the best deal for themselves and their families they can find in health care. This would turn our entire health system on its head and would lead to serious problems. I don't believe anybody in this Chamber really wants that. Instead, I urge support for the Gramm amendment. This amendment would apply language from the current Texas State law to specifically protect employers that provide health benefits from facing lawsuits for doing so. It is clear cut. It is a simple solution, but it is very clear in its intent. For weeks some of my colleagues have been eager to point out that Texas has a Patients' Bill of Rights, and some of them even talk about this is a model for the Federal legislation. Now we have the opportunity to do just this and to ensure that employers cannot be sued for doing the right thing--for helping their employees. It is simple. We know the bill before us as written will not become law, and the expanded employer liability is one of the very tough sticking points. Now we have a chance to fix it, to improve the bill, and to make it signable. I want to vote for a Patients' Bill of Rights, a bill of rights that is going to become law. A vote today for the Gramm amendment is a critical step in that direction. A vote against the amendment means that we will probably just talk about these problems without doing anything to change them. I urge my colleagues to vote to protect employers and employees alike and support the Gramm amendment. We do not want single-payer health insurance in the United States. It was proposed in 1994 and soundly defeated. Even though the opponents of the Gramm amendment would like to think that this is the reason they are opposing it, that it prevents liability, the basic fact is that they may want no health care benefit at all and then force the United States to have a single-payer plan at the end. We will do anything in our power to defeat that. I urge a vote on the Gramm amendment and yield back my time.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, first of all, my good friend from Arkansas has been a champion of full deductibility for health care for the uninsured and the self-employed for a long time. I also supported that in the House of Representatives on the Ways and Means Committee, and since I have arrived here in the Senate. Even more important than just the deductibility for the self- employed, I would like to talk generally on the Patients' Bill of Rights and the two competing bills we have before us today. Rarely is there a piece of legislation that so directly affects the American people's health and well-being as the debate we are having right now. It's important right at the start to point out that every Senator here agrees about one thing--patients come first. We all have the same goals here--making sure that patients get the care they need without interference from their insurers and without driving up costs. But the competing bills before us take two different approaches. In writing a Patients' Bill of Rights, we're trying to strike a balance, and the Kennedy-McCain bill fails that test. As we debate this health care bill, it's important to keep some perspective and to remember how we got to this point because recent congressional health care debates set the stage for the legislation before us today. Over the past decade, Congress has wrestled with health care insurance legislation a number of times. In the late 1980s, there was the Medicare catastrophic bill that we passed and then the next year we repealed it. There was the Clinton health care bill that failed. Then we worked on the Kassebaum portability bill. Now the latest version of the fight comes on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle now say they're interested in ``improving'' the private employer-provided health care system that we currently enjoy in this country. But I have to admit that I am more than a little bit skeptical about that. Many of my friends who now claim to want to improve our current system were just a few years ago trying to get rid of it altogether with the Clinton bill. And many of them still openly admit that their ultimate goal is single-payor, government-run health care--a Washington-mandated, one- size-fits-all health care system. Now many of us have the same fear that the Kennedy-McCain bill is just the first step down the regulatory path to socialized medicine. We still remember the nightmare of the Clinton health care bill. Many of us thought that was a trojan horse that was set up on purpose to fail in order to help make it easier for many of my Democrat friends to reach their final goal--to step in with a government-run, single payor health care program. The words surrounding the debate about that bill sounded good, just like some of the rhetoric we hear today about Kennedy-McCain. The Clinton health bill was going to be the best thing since sliced bread. It was going to provide all Americans access to health care at an affordable cost. But it was a bad bill. It was drafted behind closed doors by a secret task force. There were no hearings. No input from the public, until a federal court ordered it. In fact, the reason that they were hiding it for so long was that it was just another old-fashioned liberal social program in disguise. Now we are hearing the claims that the Kennedy-McCain bill is going to do all of these great things for patients--guaranteed treatments, clinical trials for cancer patients, access to specialists. But the bill before us today hasn't ever been before a Senate committee for a hearing, and it's been two years since the Senate last debated it. In fact, the latest version of the Kennedy-McCain bill was only introduced last Thursday night. Now we're being told that we have to pass it immediately and that the Democrats think it's so good that it doesn't even need to be amended. I think I have heard this song before. Thanks to the good judgment of Congress in 1994, we were able to defeat a national health insurance proposal. But today I am afraid that many of my friends who support socialized medicine are still trying to reach their goal, just by different means. So I think we need to take a long hard look at this bill so that every Senator understands exactly what's in it. From what I have seen so far, it is not very good. There are a number of problems with the bill. First we know Kennedy-McCain is going to raise costs. The neutral experts at the Congressional Budget Office tell us its going to increase costs by 4.2 percent above inflation. Health care experts tell us that for every 1 percent increase in costs, 300,000 Americans will lose their health coverage. That means that if Kennedy-McCain passes, over 1.2 million Americans are going to lose their health insurance. I just do no understand why those who support this bill, who usually argue that we need to cover more of the uninsured and hold the line on costs, now are pushing so hard for a bill that does just the opposite. Another troubling part of the Kennedy-McCain bill is its reliance on lawsuits as a means to promote better health care. It is just common sense: lawsuits don't lead to better medical care. Getting the lawyers involved isn't going to drive down costs, or deliver care faster. I can understand in outrageous situations that the threat of a lawsuit might be needed as a last report. But in Kennedy-McCain, they are the first option. In fact, the most troubling part about Kennedy-McCain is that it could in fact lead to lawsuits by employees against employers over health coverage. That is the last thing we need and could eventually lead to the end of our current employer-based health insurance system. I know that sounds drastic, but it is just common sense. If any employee can sue their employer because they are unhappy with their health coverage, the employer is going to do one of two things: drop the coverage and simply give the employee cash to buy their own insurance--or worse just drop the benefit altogether. Recent news reports tell us what happens to health care when lawsuits flourish. For instance, in Mississippi, where there has recently been a dramatic increase in forum shopping by plaintiffs' lawyers, 44 insurers have left the state. Recent studies by the General Accounting Office show that the average medical malpractice claim takes 33 months to resolve. Most patients can't wait that long. I don't see how making it easier for them to sue is going to help anyone except the lawyers. Usually here in Congress we try to make laws simpler, and to cut down on lawsuits, not to encourage more. Making it easier to sue might sound good to those who are angry about their health care, but it's only a knee-jerk, feel-good reaction that isn't going to help anybody get medical care any faster. Finally, if Kennedy-McCain is so good, why doesn't it apply to everyone? Millions of Americans aren't covered by it. Medicare and Medicaid recipients, and all of those who get coverage from their unions through collective bargaining agreements, they are not covered. While I admit that I don't want Kennedy-McCain to pass, I have to admit that I am surprised that my friends who support the bill, who tell us what a good effort it is, don't want it to apply to every single American. Instead of the Kennedy-McCain bill, I hope my colleagues take a good long, hard look at the Breaux-Frist proposal. The heart of Breaux-Frist is a new impartial medical review to make sure that patients get the care they need quickly, without getting bogged down in courts and lawsuits. Patients are guaranteed access to independent medical review to ensure that doctors, not HMOs, are making medical decisions. Breaux- Frist gives States flexibility. While providing new Federal rights. The legislation stays out of the way of States that have already made progress in protecting patients. It creates a floor, not a ceiling, when it comes to protecting patients' rights. Breaux-Frist also guarantees access to care through comprehensive patient protections. It guarantees emergency room coverage under the prudent layperson standard, and direct access to OB-GYNs for women and pediatricians for children. Best of all, Breaux-Frist ensures that employers are not going to be held liable for health decisions. And Breaux-Frist covers everyone--all 170 million Americans who get their coverage through private health plans. For health plans that fail to comply with these independent reviews, patients will be able, as a last resort, to sue in Federal court. It provides a clear-cut, sensible process that will help patients get care and hold HMOs accountable. Most importantly, we know that the President will sign Breaux-Frist into law. He won't sign Kennedy-McCain. If the supporters of Kennedy- McCain really want to pass a bill that becomes law, they will help us to amend it and improve it. If they do not, we will just continue to talk in Congress without getting anything done. I would like to conclude by telling my colleagues about what will happen if we end up passing Kennedy-McCain. Seven years ago, in Kentucky, we passed a version of the Clinton health bill. It promised better care to patients through increased regulation and lawsuits. But guess what happened. Health care in Kentucky went downhill. For starters, all of the private insurers left the State. We used to have 60. After the Clinton-Lite bill passed, we had two. The number of uninsured Kentuckians rose. Costs increased. Medical care became more expensive and harder to get. Ever since then we have been trying to fix our health care laws, and we have managed to get back to five different insurers who will now offer coverage in Kentucky. Employer-provided coverage in Kentucky nearly collapsed. Passing McCain-Kennedy could be the first step down this road for the Nation, and I can tell my friends it is a path we don't want to take. Republicans want a bill. Democrats want a bill. If we work together, I think we can get one. But Kennedy-McCain is not the answer. It has to be changed or nothing else is going to change. And the patients will lose. Madam President, I yield back my time.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that is designed to protect the privacy of all Americans from identity theft caused by theft or abuse of an individual's Social Security number, SSN. Identity theft is the fastest growing financial crime in the Nation, affecting an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 people annually. Allegations of fraudulent Social Security number use for identity theft increased from 62,000 in 1999 to over 90,000 in 2000--this is a 50 percent increase in just one year. It's no wonder why, in Wall Street Journal poll last year, respondents ranked privacy as their number one concern in the 21st century, ahead of wars, terrorism, and environmental disasters. All to often, the first clue someone has that their identity has been stolen comes when retail stores, banks, or credit card companies send letters wanting payment on bad checks or overdue bills that the individual hadn't written or knew nothing about. More than 75 percent of the time identity theft cases that take place are ``true name'' fraud. That is when someone uses your social security number to open new accounts in your name. The common criminal can apply for credit cards, buy a car, obtain personal, business, auto, or real estate loans, do just about anything in your name and you may not even know about it for months or even years. Across the country there are people who can tell you about losing their life savings or having their credit history damaged, simply because someone had obtained their Social Security number and fraudulently assumed their identity. This bill prohibits the sale of Social Security numbers by the private sector, Federal, State and local government agencies. This bill strengthens existing criminal penalties for enforcement of Social Security number violations to include those by government employees. It amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to include Social Security number as part of the information protected under the law, enhances law enforcement authority of the Office of Inspector General, and allows Federal courts to order defendants to make restitution to the Social Security trust funds. This bill would also prohibit the display of Social Security numbers on drivers licenses, motor vehicles registration, and other related identification records, like the official Senate ID Card. This new legislation reflects a small number of fair and appropriate modifications, including the following: Since the Federal Trade Commission does not have jurisdiction over financial institutions, our bill would now authorize the U.S. Attorney General to issue regulations restricting the sale and purchase of Social Security numbers in the private sector; similar to our provisions affecting the public sector, we make explicit our intent that the prohibition of sale, purchase, or display of Social Security numbers in the private sector would not apply if Social Security numbers are needed to enforce child support obligations; to help prevent other individuals from suffering the same tragic fate as Amy Boyer, we include a new provision that prohibits a person from obtaining or using another person's Social Security number in order to locate that individual with the intent to physically injure or harm the individual or use their identity for an illegal purpose; and we have clarified the provision that would prohibit businesses from denying services to individuals an exception for those businesses that are required by Federal law to submit the individual's Social Security number to the Federal Government. I think that it is high time that we get back to the original purpose of the social security number. Social Security numbers were designed to be used to track workers and their earnings so that their benefits could be accurately calculated when a worker retires--nothing else. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that is designed to protect the privacy of all Americans from identity theft caused by theft or abuse of an individual's Social Security number, SSN. Identity theft is the fastest growing financial crime in the Nation, affecting an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 people annually. Allegations of fraudulent Social Security number use for identity theft increased from 62,000 in 1999 to over 90,000 in 2000--this is a 50 percent increase in just one year. It's no wonder why, in Wall Street Journal poll last year, respondents ranked privacy as their number one concern in the 21st century, ahead of wars, terrorism, and environmental disasters. All to often, the first clue someone has that their identity has been stolen comes when retail stores, banks, or credit card companies send letters wanting payment on bad checks or overdue bills that the individual hadn't written or knew nothing about. More than 75 percent of the time identity theft cases that take place are ``true name'' fraud. That is when someone uses your social security number to open new accounts in your name. The common criminal can apply for credit cards, buy a car, obtain personal, business, auto, or real estate loans, do just about anything in your name and you may not even know about it for months or even years. Across the country there are people who can tell you about losing their life savings or having their credit history damaged, simply because someone had obtained their Social Security number and fraudulently assumed their identity. This bill prohibits the sale of Social Security numbers by the private sector, Federal, State and local government agencies. This bill strengthens existing criminal penalties for enforcement of Social Security number violations to include those by government employees. It amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to include Social Security number as part of the information protected under the law, enhances law enforcement authority of the Office of Inspector General, and allows Federal courts to order defendants to make restitution to the Social Security trust funds. This bill would also prohibit the display of Social Security numbers on drivers licenses, motor vehicles registration, and other related identification records, like the official Senate ID Card. This new legislation reflects a small number of fair and appropriate modifications, including the following: Since the Federal Trade Commission does not have jurisdiction over financial institutions, our bill would now authorize the U.S. Attorney General to issue regulations restricting the sale and purchase of Social Security numbers in the private sector; similar to our provisions affecting the public sector, we make explicit our intent that the prohibition of sale, purchase, or display of Social Security numbers in the private sector would not apply if Social Security numbers are needed to enforce child support obligations; to help prevent other individuals from suffering the same tragic fate as Amy Boyer, we include a new provision that prohibits a person from obtaining or using another person's Social Security number in order to locate that individual with the intent to physically injure or harm the individual or use their identity for an illegal purpose; and we have clarified the provision that would prohibit businesses from denying services to individuals an exception for those businesses that are required by Federal law to submit the individual's Social Security number to the Federal Government. I think that it is high time that we get back to the original purpose of the social security number. Social Security numbers were designed to be used to track workers and their earnings so that their benefits could be accurately calculated when a worker retires--nothing else. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this very important piece of legislation.