Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It restricts the use of Social Security and Medicare trust fund money to pay for union activity at the Social Security Administration. I am offering this amendment because I chair the Social Security Subcommittee and I take my oversight duties of the Social Security Administration and the trust funds very seriously. Social Security affects almost every man, woman and child in this country, and its integrity cannot be compromised. A year ago I requested a GAO audit of the use of trust fund moneys for union activity, and while we knew that the trust funds were helping pay for these activities, the GAO audit revealed the extent to which the costs were dramatically increasing. Currently about $8.1 million of trust fund moneys are used to pay people who work at SSA, not serving the taxpayer and beneficiaries, but doing full-time union work. That might not sound like a great deal of money to some, but taxpayer-financed spending for union activity at SSA has doubled in the last 3 years. Let me say that again. Trust fund spending on union activity at SSA has jumped from $4 million in 1993 to $8 million in 1995, a 100 percent increase. In addition to this huge jump in spending, the number of SSA employees who work full time on union activities increased 83 percent in 3 short years. In 1993, 80 SSA employees worked full time on union activities. By 1995, this number had escalated to 146 SSA employees working full time on union activities. These employee salaries, health benefits, and pensions come from money set aside for the Social Security benefits of our elderly and disabled citizens. These 146 SSA employees devote 100 percent of their time to union work. This means that Americans are paying their Social Security taxes for meetings on such issues as office furniture, office space allocation, and who gets a bonus at the end of the year. This is not how Social Security trust funds should be used. I am certain seniors and taxpayers around this country would agree. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and assuring our citizens that the Social Security trust funds are used for their intended purposes: the retirement and the well-being of our disabled and senior citizens in this country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of disapproval. I see no reason to continue extending most-favored-nation trading status to China, and I commend Mr. Rohrabacher for introducing the resolution before us today. Every summer when the House wrestles with this issue, MFN supporters tell us we need to continue giving most-favored-nation status to China and how expanded commerce with Beijing is changing China for the better. We hear that China is improving upon its pitiful human rights record, and that it is finally going to exorcise the ghosts of Tiannamen Square. But, every year when MFN renewal comes before the House, I am reminded of the old saying, ``The more things change, the more they stay the same.'' MFN supporters keep telling us how continuing most-favored-nation trading status is changing China for the better. But nothing really changes at all. Since we visited this issue last year, China has not changed its brutal one-child-per-family policy of forced abortion and sterilization. China hasn't stopped persecuting Christians or the Tibetan monks, and it still uses slave labor to produce commodities for export to the Unites State. China continues to menace Taiwan and tried to undermine the recent elections with its thinly veiled threats of invasion. It has not stopped smuggling AD-47's and other weapons to gangs in America, and only recently claims to have stopped exporting missiles to Iran and nuclear bomb-making materials to Pakistan. Since the MFN debate last year, I can not see any hard evidence that China has begun mending its ways. In fact, if Beijing is headed in any direction, it is backward. Mr. Speaker, when dealing with China, I think that we should probably just put a new twist on the old adage and just say, ``The more things change, the more they get worse.'' I can think of no reason to support MFN or to further encourage trade with China. I urge support for the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I also yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].

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

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, could you please give us the time remaining?

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes of my 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, to become an effective leader-- a real leader--you need three ingredients: Belief--You gotta believe in something. Involvement--you can't lead unless you get down in the trenches yourself to make things happen. Commitment--you have to stay in for the long haul--you have to overcome challenges and that takes time. Belief, involvement, and commitment. That is what makes a leader. And Bill Natcher had all three. For 40 years, Bill Natcher served in the House of Representatives. For 40 years, he never missed a day of work. For 40 years, he never missed a single vote--18,401 votes. That's commitment. Nine Presidents came and went. He served under seven different Speakers of the House. But Bill Natcher was there day in day out, quietly going about the business of doing the people's business. He didn't showboat. He didn't make a lot of speeches. He didn't schmooze with the press. He just quietly went about the business of public service. Because he believed in it. And he was never shy about sharing his beliefs. I guess I heard his spiel a thousand times in the 7 years I was in Washington with him. He repeated it virtually every time he spoke before a group of Kentuckians visiting Washington. It wasn't a complex philosophy. He would simply say, and I quote, ``If you educate your children and if you provide for the health of your people, you will continue to live in the strongest Nation in the world.'' That's it. That was the principle that motivated Bill Natcher for 40 years. He believed--he got involved--and he demonstrated unbelievable commitment. Because of that commitment, he did more than set voting and attendance records that will stand forever. He also made a very big difference in the health, education, and welfare of a whole nation. That is leadership. That was Bill Natcher. Bill Natcher deserves this honor--I rise in support of the resolution.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Durbin amendment. This is a mean-spirited attack on small farmers throughout the South. We all know that the gentleman from Illinois does not like smoking, but this amendment will not stop one person from smoking; it will only hurt the 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. We do not pay farmers. Let me repeat that. The Federal Government does not pay farmers subsidies to grow tobacco. Sure, our Government offers to tobacco farmers some of the same programs, like crop insurance and extension service, 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 not be treated as such. They should be treated the same as those who grow corn or raise dairy cows or other commodities. Tobacco farmers should not be forced to pay for the same services every other farmer receives for free. What this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is single out the small tobacco farmers who are the backbone of the agricultural industry in my State and all over the South. Most of these farmers, including the 14,400 tobacco growers in my district, own their own family farms. They may have 2 acres, 5 acres, or 10 acres of tobacco that they use to offset their other costs in farming, or they may use the extra income to send their children to college so that their children may have it just a little bit better than they did. Where is the crime in that? 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. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not do one thing, as the gentleman from Kentucky has already said, to prevent smoking. It will not do one thing to the major tobacco companies in this country. It will not decrease the deficit. It will only treat small farmers like they are criminals. It is bad policy, it is unfair, it is wrong, and let us vote against the Durbin amendment.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the repeal of the Clinton gasoline tax. It was a mistake when the Democratic Congress imposed this tax and today is our opportunity to correct it. Historically, motor fuel taxes have been dedicated to the upkeep and improvement of our Nation's highways and other transportation infrastructure. The Clinton gas tax was not. While it was passed under the rubric of deficit reduction, the Clinton tax on gasoline was simply used to fund more spending by a bloated Federal Government that already spends too much. In this Kentuckian's view, the way to cut the deficit is not by raising taxes but by changing Washington's bad spending habits. Fortunately, the Republican majority understands that we are spending money earned by working people, not magically pulled out of the air. And, this Congress has made great strides in restraining the Federal leviathan. We have fully covered the revenue change from the gas tax cut by cutting overhead spending at the Department of Energy and selling part of the broadcoast spectrum. We are not just raising another tax to offset this cut. This repeal of the gasoline tax represents one more example of the difference between the way things used to work in Washington and the way they work under the Republican majority. We believe that the people should get to keep more of what they earn. For some, this is a novel concept. But for most of us it is a bedrock principle that the American people do a better job of spending their money than bureaucrats in Washington do. Mr. Clinton has said that he raised taxes too much in 1993. I agree with him; and, now I encourage my colleagues to pass this gasoline tax repeal and give Mr. Clinton the chance to show us that, for once, his actions will match his words.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of budget resolution House Concurrent Resolution 178. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 178. It keeps us going in the right direction to make sure that we do indeed balance the budget by the year 2002. It is truly gratifying to see the change that has taken place in Washington since the Republican majority was elected. The entire debate has shifted from one of simply not letting the deficit get any bigger to really balancing the budget. That is a fundamental change in the culture of the Federal Government. It is good to take stock of these things from time to time because people forget very quickly how things used to be. They forget that under the previous leadership of the other party, spending spiraled out of control and it was common to refer to spending as being ``uncontrollable.'' We have proved that it was a lack of will to control spending that lay at the heart of our deficits. And, it was the Orwellian use of language in which spending increases were called cuts that aided the ballooning of Federal spending. The deficits ballooned because Congress could not control itself, not because spending could not be controlled. Under Republican leadership, domestic discretionary spending actually decreased for the first time in more than two decades. While we did not reduce it as much as many of us would have liked, it was a major accomplishment to completely change the direction of government from growing ever larger to actually shrinking it. Those of us who promised to work for a smaller, less intrusive government can be very proud of what we have been able to do in such a short time. The budget before us today keeps us on track to getting our financial house in order. Again, it does not go nearly as far as I would like; but, it maintains our momentum toward the goal of a balanced budget and the economic rewards that go with it. The budget should be balanced as a matter of principle, but, just as important as the principle is the economic benefits that go with it. A 2-percent drop in interest rates, which nearly all economists agree would result from a balanced budget, means lower costs for buying a home, a car, or a college education. Because of that kind of economic change, individuals will be able to do the things that they need to do to improve their lives and take care of their families. Our budget will make sure that the Government programs that we depend upon will be there when we need them. Medicare is going bankrupt even faster than we originally thought and we absolutely cannot allow that to happen. Our budget will allow Medicare to continue to grow; in fact, it will be one of the fastest growing programs in the budget. But the rate of growth will be slowed through sound policy changes that ultimately give senior citizens greater choice and control over their own health care. I suppose that budgets reflect the priorities that we place on things and they say a great deal about who you trust. Our budget says that we have heard the call of the American people for a smaller and more responsive Government. This budget reflects our belief that individuals can and will make the best choices about how to run their own lives. It is a far cry from the Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all, bigger-is-better, ``spending can't be controlled'' budgets of years past. I encourage my colleagues to support the budget resolution and keep America on the path to a balanced budget, more freedom and individual responsibility.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in heartfelt support for this bill. Passing it today is the least we can do to help save some of the half million kids who are stranded in foster care. When it comes to matters involving family, I usually hold fast to the position that Government should butt out and mind its own business. But, making adoption simpler and more affordable is one instance in which the Government can, and should, step in to make a difference. I was pleased to see last weekend that the President endorsed our bill. Even though he twice vetoed transracial adoption reform as part of our welfare bill, and even though he previously sank the adoption tax credit when he vetoed the balanced budget bill, we welcome him to the fight. Better late than never. Last year when Congress was working on welfare reform, the President called me about transracial adoption and offered to help any way he could. I sincerely appreciated that, but, he could have really helped by not vetoing welfare reform. By signing this bill, the President can still make a difference for kids who are stranded in foster care. Better late then never. Back in 1987 I know that Arkansas enacted a law that required race to be used in making adoptions. Section 9-9-102 of the Arkansas Code says that in placing a child of minority heritage, if the child cannot be placed with relatives, the court shall give preference to ``a family with the same racial or ethnic heritage as the child * * *.'' Now which Bill Clinton should we believe? So I'm more than a little bit skeptical about the President's endorsement of our bill. But I have read his letter of support, and I am glad to see that he has converted. Better late than never. Madam Speaker, I think that many Members are aware that two of my daughters have adopted children of different races. I can personally attest to obstacles that they faced before bringing these children into our family. These kids were lucky. They ran the gauntlet. Today they are not languishing in foster care, and our family is more blessed because of it. For these two children, it was better late than never. But, Madam Speaker, unless we pass this bill today, tens of thousands of kids will not escape the twilight of foster care. They will continue to suffer from discrimination, victims of race-matching. Unless we pass this bill, their day will never come. For them we won't even be able to say better late than never. It will always just be never. The color of a child's skin should not be an impediment to adoption, and it's wrong that this is used to deny children the embrace of a loving home. I urgently ask my colleagues for their vote on H.R. 3286. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record chapter 9 of the Arkansas Code of 1987: 9-9-102. Consideration of Child's Minority Race or Ethnic Heritage-- Religious Preference (a) In all custodial placements by the Department of Human Services in foster care or investigations conducted pursuant to court order under Sec. 9-9-212, due consideration shall be given to the child's minority race or minority ethnic heritage. (b) In the placement or adoption of a child of minority racial or minority ethnic heritage, in reviewing the placement, the court shall consider preference, and in determining appropriate placement, the court shall give preference, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to: (1) A relative or relatives of the child, or, if that would be detrimental to the child or a relative is not available; (2) A family with the same racial or ethnic heritage as the child, or, if that is not feasible; (3) A family of different racial or ethnic heritage from the child, which family is knowledgeable and appreciative of the child's racial or ethnic heritage. (c) If the child's genetic parent or parents express a preference for placing the child in a foster home or an adoptive home of the same or a similar religious background to that of the genetic parent or parents, in following the preferences in subdivisions (b)(1) or (2) of this section, the court shall place the child with a family that also meets the genetic parent's religious preference. Only if no family is available as described in subdivisions (b)(1) or (2) of this section may the court give preference to a family described in subdivision (b)(3) of this section that meets the parent's religious preference. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, just to close, because we do not have anyone else to speak on behalf of our side. I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Molinari, the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Pryce, and all others who have participated in the Committee on Ways and Means, who participated in the transracial adoption portion of this bill and congratulate them for their very fine work in bringing this to the floor. This is a happy day that we are doing this. This will advance bipartisan support for adoption, for adoption tax credits, for adoption of racial barriers to go down, in other words, that there be no racial barriers in adoption. I am very pleased to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

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

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this is the day that comes each year when the American people are reminded of the cost of their government. And this government ain't cheap. The Federal budget has grown to more than one-and-a-half trillion dollars and that is a cost paid directly by working Americans. It has become too easy to sit here in our Nation's Capital and spend other people's money. Other people's money--money that they earned through work and effort--should be spent with care and only for what we absolutely must have. But, unfortunately, Jefferson, was right when he said that no one spends someone else's money as carefully as he spends his own. If the amendment before us today is approved, it will make it more difficult for the government to spend other people's money in such a callous way. In a word, it will make us more accountable. Those who like to call the ones who earn the money greedy because they want to keep more of it for their families should think again. In my books, the greedy ones are those who sit here in Washington demanding that the workers hand over more and more of what they earn. Mr. Speaker, our fiscal problem has not been a lack of revenues but too much spending of other people's money. The time has come for us to make it more difficult to take and spend money earned by the American worker. Higher taxes and more spending are not signs of virtue. In fact, they are signs of a government grown too fat. To paraphrase President Reagan, you cannot measure compassion by the size of the Federal budget. I think that it is time for some compassion for the folks who have been paying the bills around here. The American taxpayer deserves a system that makes it at least as easy to cut spending as it is to raise taxes and this amendment will do that. It levels the field so that the easy answer is no longer to stick it to the taxpayer one more time. If taxes grow more slowly and spending must be cut so that the government lives with its means, that is a virtue. It may help to curb the vice of spending more and more of other people's money. I urge my colleagues to support the American Taxpayer and support the \2/3\ majority rue for tax increases.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the fine efforts of one of my constituents, Arlene Gibeau of Covington, KY. In northern Kentucky, Arlene's name is synonymous with the arts. For the last 13 years, she has served with distinction as a volunteer and then executive director of the Northern Arts Council. Through her dynamism and determination, she has helped build the council and its home, the Carnegie Center for the Arts, into the most respected showcase for the arts and culture in the Cincinnati area. Along with all of her other activities, Arlene has also managed to find time to help run our Artistic Discovery Competition in the Fourth District. Every year she has always done a first-rate job, and I have no idea how we could have done it without her. A dancer and musician, Arlene came from an artistic family. She established her own dance company at the age of 14 and ran it until World War II broke out. Widowed by the war, she raised her two daughters on her own until she remarried 3 years later. She eventually had two more daughters and a son. Her children carry her love of culture. Two of her daughters are writers and one son works in movies. A granddaughter performs as a Shakespearian actress. As an artist, Arlene's greatest strength has always been her determination that no student should be deprived of the joy of learning about the arts. When she worked at the Carnegie Center, she organized arts programs for children that really made a difference in many young lives. Over the years, word spread and kids literally walked in off the street. Arlene always found for each youngster an art project to help teach and enhance their lives. Being married to an artist myself, I think that I understand some of Arlene's passion for culture and how the arts can enrich our lives. She has helped make our corner of the world more beautiful and enjoyable. She has made a difference. Mr. Speaker, Arlene Gibeau deserves our recognition and respect for all of her efforts on behalf of the arts. I know that the city of Covington and northern Kentucky are certainly all the more rich because of her good works.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, hopefully the third time around will be the charm and the Social Security earnings limit will be passed. I want to thank Dennis Hastert, the deputy whip, and all the Republican Members of the 100th Congress class, because this has been a class project for over 8 years. Mr. Speaker, the House has twice passed legislation to increase this onerous earnings limit in the 104th Congress, but lack of Senate action has kept this measure off the President's desk. I have a very good feeling that the tide has turned and our colleagues in the other body want to see this done as much as we do. I want to commend the House and Senate leadership for working with the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee to make the earnings limit increase part of the debt limit legislation. We have worked out a fair bill which makes good policy while actually improving the financial integrity of the Social Security trust funds. By increasing the earnings limit on working senior citizens, we are fulfilling the commitment we made in the Contract With America to bring economic relief to older workers. The earnings limit is a depression-era relic that has outlived its usefulness. Older workers have a great deal of knowledge and experience and our country needs the skills of experienced workers. The current limit is unrealistically low and sends the message that the Federal Government does not want seniors to continue working and contributing. Today's older Americans are living longer and healthier. They want to continue contributing to society, but they have to ask themselves if it is worth losing a good part of their Social Security benefits to do so. In most cases, the answer is ``No.'' By discouraging skilled older workers from working, we are forgoing one of society's greatest resources--experienced workers--a commodity every employer in the United States needs and values. The earnings limit is particularly harsh on lower to middle-income seniors who must work to supplement their Social Security benefits. Approximately 1 million working seniors have some or all of their benefits withheld because of the current earnings limit. These are not wealthy working seniors. These are seniors who do not have substantial pensions, investments or savings to supplement their Social Security checks. The earnings limit is nothing less than a tax on work. Seniors need and deserve some tax relief. I urge my colleagues to join me in making this long overdue change to increase the earnings limit to $30,000.