Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today, it is my honor to speak on behalf of the Senior Citizens' Right To Work Act of 1995, because I am also speaking on behalf of the 1 million people who are affected by the Social Security earnings limit. Over a year ago, we promised working seniors financial relief from the punitive earnings limit which is imposed on many older Americans who must work to make ends meet. Today we are taking one more step toward fulfilling that promise with the Senior Citizens' Right To Work Act. H.R. 2684 is a fair and balanced bill. It is fair to the working seniors. It is fair to the financial soundness of the Social Security trust fund. This legislation enjoys widespread support among the senior community, because they, too, know it is good policy to do what is right for working seniors. The members of the Ways and Means Committee know it is good policy, too, because it passed the committee unanimously on a vote of 31 to 0. I urge my colleagues to follow the example of the Ways and Means Committee and pass the Senior Citizens' Right To Work Act of 1995. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2684) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for increases in the amounts of allowable earnings under the Social Security earnings limit for individuals who have attained retirement age, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman]. [[Page H 13968]] (Mr. HEINEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, just in response to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka], there are over 120 organizations currently trying to get the nonblind disabled to the same level of earnings that are under this bill for the blind disabled. The blind disabled in this bill continue to have the same limit on earnings that are in the current law. In other words, their limit on earnings will rise to $14,400 by the year 2002. The nonblind disabled are stuck at $6,000. The cost of raising the nonblind disabled to the blind disabled currently is approximately $10 billion. We do not have the money to do that. To take them to where the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] would like to take them, the cost would run approximately $20 billion over just the next 5 years. We do not have the money to do that. The bill preserves the indexing of the limitation on earnings for blind disabled recipients in the future. So, in answer to the gentleman from Wisconsin, blind disabled recipients lose nothing as the result of this bill. In summary, I would first like to thank everybody that has worked on this bill: the staff, Phil Moseley, Valerie Nixon, Kim Hildred, Katherine Keith, Mary Anne Gee, Ken Morton, Janice Mays, Sandy Wise, and Cathy Noe; but most of all I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs]. Without his help we could not have gotten this bill together and accomplished on a bipartisan basis, both in the subcommittee and in the full committee. When we get a bill that comes out of our subcommittee almost on a unanimous vote, and a bill that comes out of the full Committee on Ways and Means, this day and age on a unanimous vote, I am certainly very proud of that fact. And it is because of the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana on his side that we were able to accomplish that. We know that the gentleman is going to retire, and maybe we could name this the Andy Jacobs retirement bill. The fact of the matter is I am sorry to see him leave, and I am very proud to have worked with the gentleman over the past 5 years on the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair please give us the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen]. (Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad]. [[Page H 13967]]

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security and a member of the full committee.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I now have the pleasure of yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English].

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], who has worked for the last 8 years to make this bill law. (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2684, the bill just considered.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon with a very simple message for the senior citizens of America. To the senior citizens of America I say, you have not been forgotten by this Congress. Republicans in this Congress have not forgotten the promise that we made to you to raise the unfair Social Security earnings limit imposed on those who want to remain productive after age 65. Later today I will introduce the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1995. My bill will raise the earnings limit from the current $11,280 to $30,000 a year by the year 2002. As chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee I want hard-working seniors to know that we will keep our promise. This time, we will raise the earnings limit. First, immediately after Thanksgiving my subcommittee will take action on this legislation. Then, the esteemed chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Archer--himself a champion of legislation to raise the earnings limit for over two decades--has promised that the Ways and Means Committee will act. Finally, the majority leader himself has promised that the House will act on this legislation just as soon as the committee has finished its work. My bill will fully preserve the financial integrity of the Social Security trust fund. That is important to tomorrow's retirees--our children and grandchildren. We must make sure that Social Security will be there for them as well. And, with the help of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], who has worked so hard on this issue, there is no question in my mind that it will sail through the House. And I have the word of the champion of this legislation in the other body, the Senator from Arizona, that it will enjoy the same speedy action in the Senate. Finally, in ``Putting People First,'' the President also pledged his support to raising the earnings limit. To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle I say, Christmas is coming. Let us give America's seniors something they want and need. Let us raise the unfair Social Security earnings limit and give hard- working seniors the best Christmas present of all. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and if you would like to cosponsor this legislation--call my office at Social Security subcommittee.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak today in favor of our balanced budget bill. It is a decisive step forward on the road to getting the country's finances back in order. This budget represents our commitment to the future and the economic well-being of America's children and grandchildren. Our budget will save the Medicare Program for bankruptcy; end welfare as we know it; and return a few dollars to the pockets of those who earned them. As chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, I have focused on the way our balanced budget will affect both the young and the elderly. We are providing a $500 per child tax credit for middle-class families. As a father and grandfather, I know how important this credit is. But, we did not forget the elderly and the infirm in this budget either. Part of our original Contract With America was the Senior Citizen's Equity Act. We have been successful in getting part of that into this bill. I wish that we could have included the increase in the Social Security earnings limit in the balanced budget bill. We passed it in the House but the other body has different rules and for technical reasons it did not make it into this bill. Nonetheless, we are committed to increasing the earnings limit and I have a separate bill which the leadership has committed to bringing to the floor before we end this session of Congress. We will raise it. Our budget is a well considered plan to help all Americans. It is not the extremist nightmare that Mr. Clinton wants everyone to think that it is. The bill before us contains a very important provision to help those who are terminally ill or chronically ill. It allows them to sell their life insurance policy and receive the proceeds tax free. Allowing the terminally ill to have access to their insurance proceeds prior to their death lets them spend the rest of their life in dignity. Mr. Speaker, that is not extremism; that is compassion. Mr. Clinton likes to talk about extremism. Well, I don't think that it is extremism to give a $1,000 above-the-line deduction for custodial care of elderly relatives in a taxpayer's home; that is compassion. Our bill provides capital gains tax relief which benefits the young and old alike. Encouraging and rewarding investment in our country is not extremism in my book; that is wise policy. Our bill expands the availability of IRA's which allows the young to plan for their senior years. Planning ahead to take care of yourself and your family is not extremism; that is smart thinking. The only ones who will find this balanced budget extreme are those addicted to doing things the same old way. To the far left, I am certain that it is their worst fear and they will say anything to kill it. To the rest of us, this is a smart budget filled with good policies and it sets this Government on the right path. I urge my colleagues to support this balanced budget for all Americans.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill which we debate today includes the ultimate in gory contradictions--partial birth--abortion. Unfortunately, this contradictory term accurately depicts this horrendous abortion procedure in which a viable child is pulled partially from the womb only to be killed inches from life. It goes beyond repulsive. It goes beyond grotesque. H.R. 1833 would prohibit abortionists from committing this horrible medical procedure. While some of my colleagues might suggest this is the first step in overturning Roe versus Wade, that is not the case at all. I wish we were considering legislation to do away with abortion altogether, but this bill doesn't do that. This is simply a bill to prohibit one particularly despicable method of abortion. As a father of 9 children and a grandfather to 28, I have had a lot of experience in the wonders of new life being brought into this world. When a baby is born, it is the most innocent of creatures, its hands reach out for something to hold, its leg stretch and kick with energy, and its cry is filled with life. Compare this to what occurs during a partial-birth abortion. The baby exits the uterus, its hands extend to hold its mother, its legs kick wildly in the air as the child attempts to breathe, but its first breath will never come. As registered nurse, Brenda Pratt Schafer, of Dayton, OH, who has witnessed this procedure describes it: The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startled reaction, like a new baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Abortion has always been a controversial issue in this body. There are so many strong differences of opinion involved--differences of opinion about when life begins and differences of opinion about the point beyond which life should be protected. But this procedure--the partial-birth abortion--is so grotesque--so inhuman--that I can see no way at all that any rational person could defend it. Join me in doing what is right by supporting the partial birth abortion ban act.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution H. 247, and in opposition to any attempt to send American forces into Bosnia without the authorization of the U.S. Congress. The American people do not support this adventure and their will should not be thwarted. The history of the Balkans is gory enough for Hollywood to make movies about until the second coming. The Region is torn by religious and territorial rivalries that span the centuries and one injustice has been answered by another. The United States should not presume to interject itself into this morass. Many seem to have forgotten that this area has not historically been a unified country which has suddenly come apart. Bosnia has been part of many of the great empires of Eurasia which have come and gone over the centuries. Each time that it has changed hands there has been bloodshed involved. The region is so well known for its savagery that as long ago as the 15th Century the Ottoman Turks recruited soldiers from that area because of their ferocity. It is folly indeed to think that we will save the Balkans by putting 20,000 young American lives at risk. The lesson to be learned from previous so-called peacekeeping missions is that the troops are not needed if there is truly peace and that they cannot keep the peace if it does not already exist. Did we learn nothing from our ill-advised adventure in Somalia? Did we learn nothing from the mission to Beirut? Mr. Speaker, the President likes to claim that this is a NATO problem and if we do not act NATO's credibility will collapse. What nonsense! The last time I checked NATO was a defensive alliance designed to protect the member states from attack by a non-member, specifically, the now defunct Soviet Union. NATO was not designed to act as Europe's policeman. NATO is supposed to be a shield for Western Europe, not a sword to be used unprovoked, regardless of the beneficent intent. We should not be a party to this misuse of the alliance. We entered into the NATO alliance for our mutual defense and not one member state is at risk because of the horrors in Bosnia. What has happened in Bosnia is indeed a human tragedy but it is not a NATO problem and it is not a U.S. problem. It is a problem that the people who live there must solve for themselves. If France and England have determined that they have a vital interest in this war and choose to send their soldiers into Bosnia that is their business. It is not ours. We need to remind Mr. Clinton that even though the Constitution makes him the Commander-in-Chief of our Military Forces, the Constitution reserves the right to Congress for committing our people to military action. Article 1 of the Constitution firmly places power in the hands of the Congress when it comes to declaring war, raising, supporting and regulating the military forces of this Nation. This resolution simply reminds him that we must be consulted before American forces are put at risk. My colleagues, we must support the resolution and let Mr. Clinton know that we will not quietly sit by while he sends out troops on an ill-advised adventure.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 109. Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, it's important to talk about promises made--and promises kept--to senior Americans who want to keep working and contributing past age 65. A year ago in September, House Republicans promised working seniors that we would try to pass legislation to raise the limit on earnings that is so unfair, especially to middle and lower income seniors who work out of economic necessity. And on April 5, we kept our promise to working seniors by passing a tax bill that raised the earnings limit to $30,000 by the year 2000-- almost triple what it is now. And then we sent our bill over to the Senate so our colleagues there could pass it as well. But months went by, and unfortunately the Senate took no action. Now, the tax bill has been wrapped up in the budget reconciliation bill we are considering today. But, unfortunately there is an arcane budget rule which would put the entire budget reconciliation bill at risk if it includes any Social Security provisions. The arcane Senate rule put us in a tough position. The budget reconciliation bill will make it possible to achieve a balanced budget for the first time since 1969, and put an end to mortgaging our grandchildren's future. And as I said yesterday, as the grandfather of 28, nothing is more important than that. As a result, it has been determined that we must drop the earnings limit provision from reconciliation rather than risk losing it all. Yesterday, we introduced House Concurrent Resolution 109--the resolution we are considering--to make it clear that, even though we were forced to drop the earning limit increase from reconciliation, we have not given up on our commitment to passing it--and passing it this year. We are still committed to making sure that the earnings limit is increased. The House has already passed the earnings limit increase--and this resolution simply says that we are committed to making sure that the Senate follows through. That is what this resolution is all about. It's a renewal of the promise we made last year. We have not given up--and I, for one, do not intend to give up until we get the Social Security earnings limit increased. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor with a great deal of pride today. We can and should take pride in the fact that for the first time in a very long time the House of Representatives is going to do what is right for the future of this great Nation--we are balancing the budget. We will pass this balanced budget and set the country's finances back on the right path for the first time since 1969. It is a vote for the future and a vote for our children and grandchildren. We are stemming the flow of red ink from the Federal Treasury so that my 28 grandchildren won't be stuck with bills run up by their grandfather's generation. I am also proud of the fact that we listened to the American people and we are doing what we promised to do. We are delivering on the change that the people want. The people want welfare reform; and, we are delivering. The people want tax relief; and, we are delivering. The people want us to save Medicare from going bankrupt; and, we are delivering. The people want more power returned to the States; and, we are delivering. The baby boomers will be retiring soon and that means that they will be looking for Social Security and Medicare benefits. This budget helps to ensure that those benefits will be there when they need them. This is a good budget. For a change, it shows that we can keep our promises and it shows the American people that we listened to what they want instead of acting like the national nanny. There are many in this House who do not like the new way of doing things. But, I am willing to bet that the American people like knowing that we are doing things their way, for a change. My friends, this is the opportunity to fulfill the vision that President Reagan set forth in his first inaugural address when he said: It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. This budget meets the Reagan goals. We must pass it. We must show the American people that we can and will deliver the change that they want.