[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 167 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10312-S10315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Jim Bunning

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I know there are others on the Senate 
floor seeking to speak, but I wish to bid farewell to one of our 
colleagues. Few people can say they have had the same range of 
experience and successes in life as Senator Jim Bunning. In fact, there 
isn't even another Major Leaguer who can say he struck out Ted Williams 
three times in one game. Jim accomplished that notable feat in just his 
second year in the majors.
  Thirty-nine years after that, he had become the only member of the 
Baseball Hall of Fame to serve in Congress. For the past 12 years, I 
have been honored to work alongside this remarkable American in the 
Senate. We followed different paths in life, but we sure have deep love 
for Kentucky and its people. It has been my honor over the years to 
work closely with Jim to advance our common goals.
  So today I wish to say a few words about my good friend as we honor 
his remarkable life and his remarkable service.
  Jim was born and raised in Southgate, KY, and it wouldn't surprise 
anybody to learn he excelled in school and in sports growing up. He 
played baseball as a teenager at St. Xavier High School in Cincinnati, 
but it was for his skills as a basketball player that would earn him an 
athletic scholarship to Xavier University.
  Baseball interrupted his college education, but at his father's 
insistence,

[[Page S10313]]

Jim would return to Xavier and earn a degree in economics that would 
serve him well in Congress over the years. He entered the majors in 
1955, and over the course of a storied 17-year career he would play for 
the Detroit Tigers, the Philadelphia Phillies, the Pittsburgh Pirates, 
and the Los Angeles Dodgers. Jim is a pretty imposing force at 
committee hearings--just ask Chairman Bernanke--but he was a dominating 
presence on the mound long before that.
  At 6 feet 4 inches, he was a hard-throwing sidearmer who would tumble 
off the mound with every pitch he threw. By the end of his career, Jim 
could boast he was the first Major League pitcher to win 100 games, 
rack up 1,000 strikeouts, and throw no-hitters in both leagues. He 
finished with an impressive 224 wins, 184 losses, 2,855 strikeouts, and 
a 3.27 ERA--the career stats that would earn him a spot in the Baseball 
Hall of Fame.
  Jim's two greatest pitching achievements were his no-hitter in 1958 
and the perfect game he threw on Father's Day, 1964, a feat that has 
only been accomplished 20 times in baseball history. Another little 
known feat was Jimmy's so-called ``immaculate inning'' in 1959 when he 
struck out three Red Sox on nine pitches, a feat that has only been 
achieved 43 other times in baseball history.
  Around here we joke that Jim likes to throw the high hard ones, but 
he developed the skill early. Over a 4-year period with the Phillies, 
Jim hit more opposing batters with pitches than any other pitcher in 
the league. In fact, over a 17-year career, he plunked 160 batters or 
nearly 10 batters a year, making him the 13th most dangerous pitcher of 
all time, ahead of such other well-known head hunters as Roger Clemens, 
Nolan Ryan, and Don Drysdale.
  Jim has never been afraid of a little chin music, and he brought that 
same competitive mentality to his life in public service. After 
baseball, public service seemed like a logical choice. It was Jimmy's 
turn to give back, and give back is exactly what he did.
  When Jim walks out of this Chamber for the last time at the end of 
this session, he will be able to say with justifiable pride that he has 
given 33 years of his life to public service and to Kentucky.
  Over those three decades, Jim has served in all levels of 
government--from the Fort Thomas City Council to the Kentucky State 
Senate, to both Chambers in this building--12 years in the House and 12 
in the Senate. He has dedicated his life to serving the people of 
Kentucky, and Kentuckians are grateful for his service.
  In the House, he made a name for himself, among other things, by 
working tirelessly to strengthen and protect Social Security as 
chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security.
  And then, in 1998, he decided to make a run at the U.S. Senate seat 
which at the time was held by Wendell Ford. It turned out to be a 
pretty close election, but once he arrived in the Senate, Jim set out 
to become one of the hardest-working and most influential Members of 
this Chamber.
  He has been a staunch social and fiscal conservative, and a budget 
hawk who for years has sounded the alarm on the kind of concerns about 
spending and debt that drove so many Americans to the polls this month. 
Jim spoke for many Americans when he said in a recent statement that, 
being a grandfather to many he worries that future generations will be 
saddled by the poor decisions that are being made today. ``For the 
first time in my life,'' he said, ``I question if my grandchildren will 
have the same opportunities that I
had . . .''
  One particular issue that has been close to Jim's heart is the issue 
of adoption. In 2001, Jim introduced legislation to make adopting more 
affordable to American families. And in 2007, he introduced legislation 
to make those tax incentives permanent.
  And, of course, if there was ever a controversial issue regarding the 
national pastime on Capitol Hill, Jim was right at the forefront, 
including the 2005 hearings related to steroid use in baseball. In one 
memorable exchange from that hearing, Jim offered the following 
testimony, from his own experience as a player: ``Mr. Chairman,'' he 
said, ``maybe I'm old-fashioned,'' [but] I remember players didn't get 
better as they got older. We all got worse. When I played with Hank 
Aaron and Willie Mays and Ted Williams, they didn't put on 40 pounds to 
bulk up in their careers and they didn't hit more homers in their late 
30's than they did in their late 20's.'' It was just this kind of 
straightforward, commonsense approach to the issues that has won Jim a 
legion of admirers not only on the baseball diamond, but off of it. And 
on this issue in particular, Jim's passion and personal perspective 
helped shed light not only on the dangers of steroid use at the 
professional level, but on the growing steroid epidemic among young 
athletes at all levels.
  Despite his high profile, Jim never forgot about the issues that 
mattered most to his constituents back home. He's been a staunch 
supporter of clean coal technologies as an effective, efficient way to 
use coal, improve our environment, and bring jobs to Kentucky. Another 
issue that was extremely important to all Kentuckians was the failed 
clean up of radioactive contamination that was found in the drinking 
water wells of residences near the Department of Energy's uranium 
enrichment plant in Paducah, KY, in 1988. In 2004, Jim harshly 
criticized the DOE's cleanup efforts, as well as called several 
hearings on Capitol Hill to draw attention to DOE's failure to 
compensate many workers that had been stricken with radiation-related 
diseases.
  In every issue he has taken on, whether national, statewide or local, 
Jim has been a man of principle from start to finish. He has stayed 
true to himself. And in a truly remarkable life, he has got a lot to be 
proud of. But if you were to ask Jim to list his greatest achievement, 
I don't think he would say it was his election to the U.S. Senate or 
his induction to the Hall of Fame. They would both come in a distant 
second and third to the day he married his high school sweetheart, 
Mary. Jim and Mary still live in the northern Kentucky town where he 
grew up. They have been married for nearly 60 years. Together, they 
have raised nine children. And they enjoy nothing more than spending 
time with the next generation of Bunnings--which last time I checked 
included 35 grandchildren and 5 great-grandchildren. Jim will tell you 
there's no secret to his success. He is happy to give all the credit to 
Mary. As he put it in his Hall of Fame induction speech, she is his 
``rock.''
  Today, we honor and pay tribute to our friend and colleague for more 
than three decades of public service. Jim will be remembered for his 
two Hall of Fame-worthy careers, for his example of principled 
leadership, and for his devotion to God, country, and family. On behalf 
of myself and the entire Senate family, Jim, we thank you for your 
service, and we wish you the best in the next chapter of your life.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I join Senator McConnell in a tribute to my 
friend and colleague, Jim Bunning. Jim and I came into the House of 
Representatives at the same time as parts of the 100th class. I have 
enjoyed being with him as well in the Senate. Jim and Mary are counted 
as among the best friends my wife Carol and I have. I agree with 
Senator McConnell that while people may disagree with Jim Bunning, no 
one has ever doubted his courage, his sincerity, his love for this 
country, his desire to do what is right, and his commitment to all 
those efforts. So I will greatly miss Jim when he is no longer part of 
the Senate. I think it is probably time for Jim and Mary to have a 
little bit of time to spend with all those children, grandchildren, and 
great-grandchildren. Obviously, we all wish them both well.


                         omnibus appropriations

  Madam President, I will speak for a few moments about the matter 
Senator McConnell brought to our attention; namely, this almost 2,000-
page Omnibus appropriations bill. I know the majority leader has turned 
to the START treaty, and I think it is fairly obvious why. The American 
people are focused like a laser beam on this spending bill. I can't 
turn on the TV without hearing comments by both the commentators as 
well as people in public life about what this spending bill will do for 
this country's future.

[[Page S10314]]

  I think it is time we devote some attention to this spending bill, 
rather than put it under the table and talk about the START treaty 
instead, which, after all, we could accomplish at any time.
  As the majority leader said, spending for the U.S. Government runs 
out at midnight Saturday night. I can hear the cries at that time: We 
have an emergency on our hands. You don't want to shut down the Federal 
Government, do you? We have to do something.
  Well, the something is apparently this 2,000-page, over $1 trillion 
bill, which will not have had adequate time for debate or exposure to 
the American people. Apparently, under the schedule, as it now is, it 
would not even entitle us to try to amend it. Think about that for a 
moment. That which is most important to the American people and the 
subject of the message conveyed in this last election--to stop the 
wasteful Washington spending--we are not even going to be able to amend 
the $1 trillion-plus bill that has been laid before us.
  I know--and I think most people in this body know--how important 
international relations and treaties are, including the START treaty. 
But I also agree with the colorful comment by James Carville, a former 
adviser to President Clinton, who has a way with words. He said the 
American people don't give a pig's patooty about the START treaty.
  Obviously, those of us in the Senate do. We understand its 
importance. But at this moment, the most important thing on the minds 
of the American people is how we are going to fund the Federal 
Government without continuing to waste billions of dollars of their 
money. That is what we ought to be focusing on in the last few hours we 
have.
  Let me address a little bit about what we have found so far is in 
this bill and why so many of us are so concerned about it. The first 
point I will make is, I don't think ever in the history of the modern 
Congress that Congress has failed or the Senate has failed to pass a 
single appropriations bill. The American people should understand that, 
ordinarily, Congress passes a budget and we each--both bodies--pass 
about 12, sometimes 13 bills, to fund the different agencies and 
departments and functions of the U.S. Government. We didn't do that 
this year. We didn't pass a single one. We didn't pass a budget. So now 
the emergency that occurs, because we will run out of funding on 
Saturday, obviously, is laid at the feet of the majority, which didn't 
do its work earlier in the year, and that forces us into the position 
of having to act in this emergency way.
  As the Republican leader said, ironically, this is at the same time 
we were considering the health care legislation last year, the week 
before Christmas, in a situation in which Members have very little time 
and ability to change the legislation that is before us, a bill that 
will cost more than $1 trillion. Very few Members will have time to 
analyze it, let alone read it.
  Funding of the government, of course, is one of the most important 
responsibilities that we as Senators have. But as I said, this bill is 
going to get short shrift on the floor because it appears we will not 
even have an opportunity to amend it, if the majority leader's schedule 
holds.
  Let's talk about some of the specifics in it. As I said, it costs 
more than $1 trillion. There is nearly $18 billion more spending in 
this legislation than in the temporary continuing resolution that was 
enacted last September. In other words, at that time, we understood we 
needed to begin the process of funding the government, even though not 
a single appropriations bill had been passed. So we passed legislation 
that, over a 12-month period, was $18 billion less than the bill that 
comes before us now. I don't think this is responsible, and I think 
most Americans who have had to trim their budgets would agree it is not 
responsible.
  The bill contains more than 6,700 earmarks. Think about that for a 
moment. There are only 535 Members of Congress. Most of us don't have 
earmarks in this bill. So at 6,700 earmarks, you are talking about some 
legislators in the House and Senate having numerous earmarks. The total 
is $8 billion worth of earmarks. There is a debate about whether 
earmarks are good or bad, and some who believe they are OK say it is 
not that much money. But $8 billion is a lot of money no matter who is 
doing the counting--even in the Federal Government. It includes 
things--and I don't like to make fun of these things because they all 
have some purpose--like $247,000 for virus-free wine grapes in 
Washington. I am sure it is important to have virus-free wine grapes, 
but the last time I checked, the people who grow grapes are doing 
fairly well financially and could probably afford, if all the wine 
growers pool their resources, to come up with $200,000 to try to make 
sure their grapes are free of virus.
  There is a $100,000 appropriation for the Edgar Allan Poe Visitor 
Center in New York. Edgar Allan Poe is certainly an iconic American 
literary figure, but for the Federal Government--I mean the taxpayers 
in Arizona probably don't appreciate the need to pony up money for the 
Edgar Allan Poe Visitor Center in New York.
  The omnibus bill contains upward of a $1 billion increase in spending 
for the vastly unpopular health care bill Americans said they didn't 
want and continue to strongly oppose. Here are a couple of the details 
on that. There is an allocation of $750 million for the Prevention and 
Public Health Fund slush fund for a variety of programs--not named; a 
$175.9 million adjustment in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services program management account to implement the massive Medicaid 
expansion, as well as cuts to Medicare Advantage--something my 
constituents strongly objected to; an $80.7 million adjustment for HHS 
program management, on and on.
  There are millions included for implementation of the very 
controversial Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, including a Securities 
and Exchange Commission funding increase of $189 million. That is 17 
percent more than last year; a Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
funding increase of $117.2 million or a 69-percent increase over last 
year's funding; Treasury gets increase of $32.35 million or a 10-
percent increase. It goes on and on.
  The omnibus also contains $790 million for an increase in education 
stimulus programs. A thorough examination of those programs reveals 
that, at least in some cases, they advance the cause of the teachers 
unions--at least in my view--more than the cause of educating American 
children.
  Some claim that at least you can say this bill's top line--its gross 
amount of spending is consistent with the budget proposal advocated by 
Senators Sessions, McCaskill, and many of the rest of us, including 
myself. But that is not true, as it turns out. It excludes numerous 
parts, such as multiyear spending caps, enforcement mechanisms, and 
limitations on emergency spending designations--something I will talk 
about in a second. In addition, the majority is using a budgetary 
sleight of hand to ostensibly meet the spending caps for 2011. This is 
what I was going to mention. They do this by a trick of retroactively 
declaring spending in last year's supplemental appropriations bill for 
Agent Orange claims as an emergency. So that money is spent. It was 
last year's funding. Now we are going to call that money emergency 
funding. What is the effect? It doesn't count and reduces the baseline 
and, like magic, by treating it as an emergency--to the tune of almost 
$3.5 billion--they have been able to secure a lower CBO score on the 
bill and, therefore, not exceed the spending caps. Without the gimmick, 
they obviously would have exceeded the spending caps proposed in the 
Sessions-McCaskill legislation.
  I will mention process briefly. This bill is being considered under a 
deeply flawed process, as the Republican leader said. Voters made a 
very clear statement, I think, last month. They do not like wasteful 
Washington spending. They want it to stop. They didn't like the health 
care bill. They do not want us--here, a week before Christmas--to rush 
very complex, very large bills through the Congress without time for 
their representatives to read them, to study them and have an 
opportunity, potentially, to amend them. But under the schedule laid 
out, as I said, an open amendment process for this bill would be 
impossible.

  At the very least, one would think Republicans should be entitled to 
1 or 2 amendments to each of the 12 appropriations bills that are 
included within

[[Page S10315]]

this giant Omnibus appropriations package. Under regular order, each of 
these bills would take at least several days of floor time and we would 
consider numerous amendments. That is not going to happen with this 
bill. Instead, we will do the equivalent of more than a month's work of 
floor time in a couple of days, with no amendments. And some wonder why 
Congress' approval rating has fallen to 13 percent. Someone said: Who 
is the 13 percent? And the answer was: Well, it is our staff and our 
families. Maybe.
  Let me conclude here with a little bit about jobs and energy prices. 
This bill will raise energy prices in the United States and destroy 
energy jobs through and including some of the following provisions:
  There is a ban on shallow water drilling. I thought the whole idea--
especially after the gulf, where we had deepwater drilling problems--
was to encourage drilling in shallow waters to make up for that other 
loss of production. The bill changes the law to triple the time for the 
Department of the Interior to approve exploration plans for offshore 
operators from 30 to 90 days. This provision could lead to huge 
financial penalties to the government, breach of contracts, and add 
further impediments to creating jobs and energy here at home.
  The bill reduces the State's share of Federal onshore oil and gas 
production revenues to 48 percent, down from the 50-50 split required 
under current law, and it raises fees for onshore and offshore oil and 
gas production on Federal lands. These fees amount to a tax that will 
make domestic energy production more expensive to produce, especially 
for the small businesses that do so.
  There is much more--much more the American people should know--but we 
are supposed to be talking about an arms control treaty with Russia 
instead. I want to remind everyone that we are in a lameduck Congress, 
and my view is that trying to enact such a huge and complex bill within 
the narrow postelection timeframe shows disrespect for the democratic 
process. For that reason and the others I have discussed, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose cloture on this bill and to pass a sensible 
continuing resolution of the kind the Republican leader has introduced.
  I want to leave no doubt about this final point. Those who are 
watching this process carefully and who understand how the process 
works understand that the important vote here is on cloture. It is the 
first vote. It is, in effect, the vote to consider this omnibus bill. 
Our constituents will not be fooled by Senators who vote ``yes'' on 
cloture to go to this bill--ensuring it will be considered under this 
rushed process without amendment--but then who vote ``no'' on final 
passage, after it is too late to stop the flawed process and say, well, 
I voted ``no'' on the bill. Well, of course, they voted ``no'' on the 
bill, but then it was too late.
  The key vote is on the cloture vote, whenever that might occur, and I 
am told it might occur at actually 12:01 on Sunday morning--in other 
words, one minute after midnight. Well, that would be very reminiscent 
of last year's consideration of the health care bill, where through all 
the procedural gimmickry this body did not distinguish itself in 
adopting legislation under a process the American people saw through, 
objected to, and continue to criticize the legislation adopted as a 
result of the process as well as its substance.
  If we want to do the same thing with this legislation, then it will 
demonstrate in the very first act relating to spending after the 
election that this Senate did not get the message sent by the American 
people.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, are we in morning business at this 
point?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are on the treaty.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for no more than 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.