Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. No, I think the Senator answered the question. The Senator was willing to vote for a budget resolution prior to the submission of the complete budget by the President in 1993, but he criticizes Republicans for doing precisely the same thing in the year 2001.

Mr. KYL. Thank you.

Mr. KYL. Was the answer yes?

Mr. KYL. No, I want the Senator to answer the question.

Mr. KYL. That was then; this is now.

Mr. KYL. When Republicans, in 1993, objected to the consideration of the budget resolution on the grounds that President Clinton's ``Vision of Change'' was not a real budget, did the Senator from West Virginia stand up for their rights to wait until the President submitted a complete budget? Or did the Senator from West Virginia vote with the majority on a purely partisan vote to pass the budget resolution and, in fact, to pass the final budget resolution, all prior to the time President Clinton submitted a budget?

Mr. KYL. I would like to yield to the Senator for a question if he would care to answer it.

Mr. KYL. I ask the Senator from West Virginia, were you willing to stand up for the----

Mr. KYL. The regular order is I have the time, I believe.

Mr. KYL. I hope the Senator from West Virginia doesn't mind if anyone disagrees with his assessment that we shouldn't take up the budget. May I ask the Senator a question?

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I had asked for an hour to present to the Senate another very interesting set of comments. However, given the fact that we have begun an actual conversation on the Senate floor, something somewhat rare, I am delighted to continue to use the time that was allocated to me under the unanimous consent agreement to continue this debate and, under it, not only have Republicans speaking, but also to have Democrats speaking, with the stipulation that when we are all done with this I have an opportunity to present my other remarks in full, which really will not take a full hour but at least I ask I have that opportunity at the time.

Mr. KYL. Thank you. I thought for a moment you were suggesting Republicans were partisan for sticking together but Democrats were not partisan for sticking together. The fact is, at that time the Democrats were in charge of the Senate. It passed Senate and House floors on party-line votes--budget resolutions based on the document, completed conference on the two budget-passed resolutions, completed and passed on party-line votes, budget resolution conference based upon this ``Vision of Change'' document and, most importantly, Congress did all of this by April 1, 1993, a full week before President Clinton submitted his detailed budget plan. The 107th Congress now is working to adopt a budget resolution in the Senate following the submission of President Bush's blueprint, and that is no different than what was done in the 1993 democratically- controlled Congress. The point I am trying to make is that all of this debate about procedures--is it the real budget? Is it just a blueprint? Have we ever done this before? Is it partisan? All of that is a smokescreen. It is a smokescreen to hide the fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to delay the consideration of the budget in order to delay the consideration of tax relief so that possibly something will come up so the tax relief won't pass to the degree that President Bush wants it to pass. Just to make it crystal clear, I would never suggest that the Senator from West Virginia would feel himself bound to follow his party leadership. I suggest that it is the Senator from West Virginia who is helping to lead his party. I know in this case he believes strongly about this. We believe just as strongly. I do not think that it is too much to ask the Congress to take up the budget at the time it does every year, pursuant to the budget resolution, and consider that budget so we can get on with the other business of the Congress and the other business of the nation, to take up the questions of appropriations for all of the spending programs we need to fund, to take up the question of tax relief for hard-working Americans, and to do all the other things the American people sent us back here to do. To try to get bogged down in a bunch of parliamentary or procedural wrangling, I suggest, doesn't do the people's business.

Mr. KYL. It was a partisan vote.

Mr. KYL. President Clinton's vision of America was transmitted on February 17, 1993, 145 pages long, outlining the details of the fiscal 1993 spending stimulus package and tax increase plan, plus the other visions of President Clinton. President Bush's ``Blueprint for New Beginnings,'' of which the Senator from West Virginia has a copy, was transmitted on February 28, 2001. The document is 207 pages long and outlines a 10-year budget plan with $1.6 trillion in tax cuts. The Senator from West Virginia might say my document is more detailed than your document. I think that is a matter of judgment. My document is longer than your document. It covers a longer period of time. The fact is, neither are budgets in the pure traditional sense, the Senator from West Virginia would acknowledge. Both are the best the administration could do within the short period of time they had, and in both cases the majority party in the Senate sought to take up a budget resolution prior to the submission of the budget by the President. The Democratic-controlled Congress in 1993 not only reported a budget resolution on a party-line vote--and I will stop for a moment and say the Senator from West Virginia is exactly correct, not a single Republican supported it but every Democrat did support it. So I don't know which side you blame for being partisan.

Mr. KYL. I know that, and I appreciate the Senator helping to set the record straight. Let me set it exactly straight, however.

Mr. KYL. I think the Senator from West Virginia would concede I have been quite liberal in yielding to him to answer that question.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, while the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is still here, let me thank him for the remarks he has just made. I, too, listened very carefully to his remarks, as well as to the Senator from Florida and the Senator from New York. But I must say that I find this rather bemusing--if I am using that term correctly. People around the country might wonder why there is such an emphasis on, or such a concern for, taking up the budget. After all, isn't it time to take up the budget? Indeed, in the normal course of events in the Senate, we would be taking up the budget about right now. So why is there all this expression about concern about taking up the budget? I suggest it has to do with the old phrase, ``You follow the money.'' While I came here to speak about another subject, I want to speak for a few minutes about this subject because I think people across this country deserve to know what is really behind all of this talk about taking up the budget. You see, the truth is, until we take up the budget and pass a budget, we can't take up tax relief. Until we take up and pass tax relief, the money that is available here in Washington to be spent by the politicians will be spent by the politicians. So you follow the money. If we never take up the budget, then we can't pass the tax relief. If we don't pass the tax relief, the money that the hard-working families of this country have sent to Washington, DC, will be available for this Congress to spend. People who like to spend other people's money don't want to see tax relief. They can't stand in the way of tax relief, which is too popular. It is going to pass. But they might be able to stop the budget from being considered, based upon some parliamentary procedures. That, Madam President, is what I think this is all about. Let me take the four points that have been raised by my friends across the aisle in order: First of all, that we can't possibly take up the budget yet because we don't have the details of the President's budget. I have in my hand a copy of something called ``A Vision of Change For America.'' The Senator from West Virginia will remember this. It is dated February 17, 1993. This is what the Democratically controlled Senate had before it when it considered the budget resolution in that year. We did not have the Clinton budget. There was no Clinton budget. Like the first year of President Bush, that was the first year of President Clinton. It takes a new President's team a little while to put together the budget, but that has never stopped the Congress from passing a budget in the ordinary timeframe because that is the first thing we have to do. We are pretty well stymied in all of the other things we have to do in terms of reconciliation, in terms of appropriations, until we have adopted the budget. What is this ``Vision for Change for America'' that President Clinton sent up? It was not a budget, as he acknowledges here; it was a blueprint, a vision, as he called it, pretty similar to the document the Senator from West Virginia has been referring to that President Bush sent up to Capitol Hill. It is a blueprint. It is a vision for what he would like to do. There is a lot of information in it. It is not as detailed as the usual budget, to be sure, but there is plenty of information about the general direction he would like to take. What happened to this ``Vision for Change for America''? Did Republicans say: We cannot possibly take this budget resolution up; we have to wait for a detailed budget by President Clinton? Actually, I think some Republicans did say that, but the Democratic leadership said: Forget it; we are going to take up the budget resolution, and this body passed a budget resolution in a number of days--we are trying to determine whether it was 12 or 13. It was a number of days, close to 2 weeks, before the real Clinton budget was sent up here. The Senate acted upon its budget resolution before it ever had the detailed Clinton budget before it. I do think it is a bit much to argue that it is unprecedented, that it is improper for the Senate to take up a budget resolution when it has not yet got the exact, complete, detailed budget from the President. We know full well the general direction this President's budget is going to take. The second point is that there are questionable forecasts. I have heard the phrase twice used here, ``looking through a glass darkly.'' My goodness, we have to make decisions every day based upon what we think is going to happen. We cannot know for certain. As the fine Senator from West Virginia pointed out, we can hardly forecast the weather tomorrow, and that is true. Yet we make decisions in the Congress, in the Government, in business, for our own families every day based upon imperfect and uncertain knowledge of what is going to happen in the future. We have to do that; otherwise, we would be frozen into inaction. We would never be able to do anything. We do the best we can. We have been using very conservative budget estimates. The congressional budget estimates are that over the next 10 years, we would have about a $5.6 trillion surplus and in that President Bush has decided to ask for $1.6 trillion over a 10-year period to be returned to American taxpayers. That is the size of his tax cut. That tax cut was proposed during the campaign when the estimated budget surplus was far less. That budget surplus has grown virtually every quarter since then. It is now up to $5.6 trillion, $5.8 trillion. Given the fact that these are conservative estimates, given the fact that we all have to make decisions on imperfect information, it certainly seems to me we ought to at least proceed to take up the budget. My goodness, we will be here all year waiting for exactitude, and nobody, of course, expects that. The third point I have heard is there is not going to be room for debt relief if we are not careful. That, of course, is not true. I was in a hearing yesterday of the Finance Committee in which we had experts talk about how much debt we could pay down and over what period of time. Everybody agrees that the debt can be paid down within the 10-year period as far as we can possibly pay it. The only difference is, can we pay it down to about $500 billion or down to $1 trillion, somewhere in between there? The experts are in disagreement as to where exactly we can pay it down. It is virtually impossible to pay off more debt than that because it is held by people in long-term obligations and obligations that would cost too much to buy back. We are going to pay down the debt all we can, and there is just over $1 trillion left, after we have done the tax cuts, after we have paid off the debt, and after we have paid for everything on which the Government has to spend money, plus a 4-percent rate of growth, more than the rate of inflation. And that is on top of record huge historical increases in spending over the last 2 years, all of which are built into the baseline. We have the historic spending, greater even than--well, literally any other period in our history, including all but the largest year of spending in World War II. We have historic spending levels. We are increasing that spending; we are paying off the national debt; we are providing $1.6 trillion over 10 years in tax relief; and we still have another billion dollars left over. That does not sound to me to be a very risky proposition. Finally, the fourth point that has been raised by our friends on the other side is we have to come together in a bipartisan spirit, and that, I gather, is why the Democratic leadership has worked so hard to get every single Democrat to oppose the budget resolution in an absolute 100-percent partisan vote. That is bipartisanship? Every Democrat can decide to oppose this budget resolution on the basis that they do not like it. That is totally fair. They will probably all conclude that is why they are not going to vote for it, and I certainly respect that. But I think it is a bit much to talk about a spirit of bipartisanship when we already know that for several days this week, the Democratic leadership has been working very hard to get an absolute, 100-percent partisan vote against the Republican budget resolution. That is not bipartisanship. That is the condition we are faced with right now. Why wouldn't Senators want to take up the budget? What is really behind this? As I said, follow the money. We cannot cut taxes until we take up the budget, and that, in fact, is why some Senators do not wish us to take up the budget. Paul Harvey has a saying at the end of his broadcast in which he says: ``And that's the rest of the story.'' If we are direct and clear- eyed about this, this is the rest of the story. It has nothing to do with whether we should take up the budget, whether we have enough information to take up the budget, whether it is time to take up the budget, whether we will have all week long to debate the budget, to offer amendments to the budget. All of that will be quite possible. It all has to do with partisan politics to delay taking up the budget so that we delay taking up the issue of tax relief because there are a lot of folks who do not want the degree of tax relief for which President Bush has called. I see my distinguished friend from West Virginia wants to intercede with a comment which he will pose in the form of a question, and I will be happy to yield.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Certainly.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object if the Senator chooses to speak for 20 minutes, but I would like to get in the queue, if I might. Since the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has been speaking now or has had the floor at least for over an hour, I would like, after the Senator from New York has concluded--for however long she takes--to have the right to speak or be yielded time for up to 1 hour.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as Americans, we sometimes take for granted the fundamental rights for which our forefathers fought and on which this great nation was founded. We must not forget, however, that there are places in the world where people are denied these basic freedoms. Sadly, even with the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the spread of freedom and democracy in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, there are countries that still do not have freedom of press, assembly, movement, religion or association; where people do not have the right to peacefully change their government; and where individuals do not have the right to due process. Cuba is one such country, a nation that, despite our efforts over the past 40 years, remains subject to the dictatorial rule of Fidel Castro. Castro retains power over the Cuban people through force, fear, and deprivation. A 1999 Human Rights Watch Report, Cuba's Repressive Machinery: Human Rights Forty Years After the Revolution, summarized the deplorable situation in that country, stating, Over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression. The denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban law. In the name of legality, armed security forces, aided by state-controlled mass organizations, silence dissent with heavy prison terms, threats of prosecution, harassment, or exile. Cuba uses these tools to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental human rights of expression, association, and assembly. The conditions in Cuba's prisons are inhuman, and political prisoners suffer additional degrading treatment and torture. In recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while shrugging off international appeals for reform and placating visiting dignitaries with occasional releases of political prisoners. Clearly, it is time to explore a different approach to dealing with Cuba. It is important that, as the era of Fidel Castro's rule comes to a close, we work to establish a long-term relationship with the Cuban people. During the 1980's President Reagan was a champion for human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, standing up for freedom, democracy, and civil society. He passionately spoke of American values and God-given rights, and more importantly, backed his words with action. In his 1982 ``Evil Empire'' speech before the British House of Commons, President Reagan stated: While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. Poland is but one example of the success of this firm stance. Pope John Paul II, after he visited Cuba in 1998, said, ``I wish for our brothers and sisters on that beautiful island that the fruits of this pilgrimage will be similar to the fruits of that pilgrimage in Poland.'' Senator Lieberman has introduced a resolution calling upon the United States to offer assistance to Cuban people and independent organizations, modeled after President Reagan's support for the Polish Solidarity Movement. Though our debate on the embargo is sure to continue during this Congress, Senator Lieberman's resolution outlines the basic problem on which we can all agree. Fidel Castro's human rights record is deplorable, and the situation continues to deteriorate. Furthermore, this resolution proposes a solution that supports the strengthening of civil society in Cuba, offering hope to the people there who are struggling to emerge from beneath the shell of communism. It also calls upon the U.S. delegation to this year's meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission to actively support the passage of a resolution condemning Cuba for its human rights violations. As we continue to enjoy the fruits of liberty, we have an obligation, as Americans, to take a stand against Castro's regime and assist the Cuban people in a peaceful transition to democracy. We have an opportunity, beginning with the passage of this resolution, to reach out to the Cuban people through the wall of repression that Castro has built around his small island, so that they may some day taste the freedom and justice that we have been afforded not by chance, but by the hard work and perseverence of those who believed that life should not be any other way. With our help, the Cuban people can further their progress down the road to democracy.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide new educational options to the students who need those options the most. While many Americans are satisfied with the public schools available to their children, we know that there are also many who are not, and with good reason. In large urban school districts, a majority of students drop out before high school graduation. Nearly 70 percent are unable to read at the so-called ``basic'' level. And all too frequently, violence and entrenched mediocrity create a climate where learning is actually discouraged. No wonder caring parents in such circumstances want alternatives. We have seen compelling evidence of the pent-up demand for different options when private organizations have invited low-income parents to apply for partial scholarships that could be used at a non-public school. Usually, these private scholarship programs are structured in such a way that, to be eligible for an award, a low-income family must agree to contribute a significant portion of the total tuition bill. The results are striking: In 1997, two distinguished business leaders, Ted Forstmann and John Walton invited applications for one thousand partial tuition scholarships from families here in the District of Columbia. Nearly eight thousand applications were received. In 1998, they formed an organization called the Children's Scholarship Fund to apply the idea on a national basis. They planned to offer 40,000 scholarships. 1.25 million applications were received. No less impressive than the numbers are the testimonials offered by parents who have been pleading for better options. One mother said the following about her experience: ``We would not be able to afford this without your help. Our daughter is really excited to be learning spelling and grammar, which was not being taught in public school. She's an aspiring writer and thinks this is great. My son has autism, and his new school had more services in place for him on the first day of school, without me even asking, than we've been able to pull out of the public school in six years! They both love their new schools and are doing well.'' Here's another mother's testimony: I am so excited that my son has been chosen to receive a scholarship . . . One evening I sat on my bed and cried because I really wanted him to attend a private school but I know that I cannot afford all of the tuition. Therefore your scholarship fund was my only hope.'' Yet another mother wrote, ``I cannot begin to tell you how grateful I am for this opportunity to send my children to a private school. As a low-income mother of four wonderful children with great potential, I would not be able to provide this chance for them without your help. This particular mother goes on to say, ``I have chosen,'' I cannot put enough stress on that word, ``chosen a school that will help nurture the seeds of greatness in them. I am sure that with this opportunity to succeed, my children will be successful and contribute greatly to society in the future.'' Mr. President, in 1997, leaders in my state settled on a plan to help the private sector to satisfy that vast unmet demand for options. They instituted a state tax credit that allows Arizona residents to claim a dollar-for-dollar income tax credit for donations to school tuition organizations, like the Children's Scholarship Fund. Thanks to that program, 4,000 Arizona students, nearly all of them from disadvantaged backgrounds, have received scholarship assistance that has made it possible for them to enroll in a school of their choice. The number of school tuition organizations operating in the state has shot up from 2 to 33. The legislation I am introducing today would extend this Arizona idea nation-wide, and I am pleased that my Arizona colleague, Congressman John Shadegg, will introduce this legislation this week in the House of Representatives. By way of tribute to President Bush's more comprehensive education proposal, I have given this bill the title, ``The Leave No Child Behind Tax Credit Act of 2001.'' The Leave No Child Behind Tax Credit Act would allow a family or business to claim a $250 tax credit for donations to qualified school tuition organizations. To qualify for that designation, an organization would have to devote at least 90 percent of its annual income to offering grants and scholarships for parents to use to send their children to the school of their choice. Scholarships awarded by such organizations could be used to offset tuition costs at a private school, or to pay the tuition costs families in most states must pay to enroll a child in a public school across district boundaries. This measure would move us toward an education policy that recognizes the vital importance of parental choice. It also recognizes and encourages the efforts that have been undertaken by public-spirited private citizens to find non-governmental solutions to the serious challenge of improving education in our country. These activists embody the vision set forth by President Bush in his inaugural address, the vision of responsible citizens building communities of service and a nation of character. Moreover, when parents are able to decide for themselves how to go about securing one of life's most vital goods, namely, education for their children, rather than having such decisions made for them by a bureaucracy, they become, in President Bush's memorable terms, citizens, not subjects. I believe that this legislation will help them to do that, and I am very pleased to introduce it today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide new educational options to the students who need those options the most. While many Americans are satisfied with the public schools available to their children, we know that there are also many who are not, and with good reason. In large urban school districts, a majority of students drop out before high school graduation. Nearly 70 percent are unable to read at the so-called ``basic'' level. And all too frequently, violence and entrenched mediocrity create a climate where learning is actually discouraged. No wonder caring parents in such circumstances want alternatives. We have seen compelling evidence of the pent-up demand for different options when private organizations have invited low-income parents to apply for partial scholarships that could be used at a non-public school. Usually, these private scholarship programs are structured in such a way that, to be eligible for an award, a low-income family must agree to contribute a significant portion of the total tuition bill. The results are striking: In 1997, two distinguished business leaders, Ted Forstmann and John Walton invited applications for one thousand partial tuition scholarships from families here in the District of Columbia. Nearly eight thousand applications were received. In 1998, they formed an organization called the Children's Scholarship Fund to apply the idea on a national basis. They planned to offer 40,000 scholarships. 1.25 million applications were received. No less impressive than the numbers are the testimonials offered by parents who have been pleading for better options. One mother said the following about her experience: ``We would not be able to afford this without your help. Our daughter is really excited to be learning spelling and grammar, which was not being taught in public school. She's an aspiring writer and thinks this is great. My son has autism, and his new school had more services in place for him on the first day of school, without me even asking, than we've been able to pull out of the public school in six years! They both love their new schools and are doing well.'' Here's another mother's testimony: I am so excited that my son has been chosen to receive a scholarship . . . One evening I sat on my bed and cried because I really wanted him to attend a private school but I know that I cannot afford all of the tuition. Therefore your scholarship fund was my only hope.'' Yet another mother wrote, ``I cannot begin to tell you how grateful I am for this opportunity to send my children to a private school. As a low-income mother of four wonderful children with great potential, I would not be able to provide this chance for them without your help. This particular mother goes on to say, ``I have chosen,'' I cannot put enough stress on that word, ``chosen a school that will help nurture the seeds of greatness in them. I am sure that with this opportunity to succeed, my children will be successful and contribute greatly to society in the future.'' Mr. President, in 1997, leaders in my state settled on a plan to help the private sector to satisfy that vast unmet demand for options. They instituted a state tax credit that allows Arizona residents to claim a dollar-for-dollar income tax credit for donations to school tuition organizations, like the Children's Scholarship Fund. Thanks to that program, 4,000 Arizona students, nearly all of them from disadvantaged backgrounds, have received scholarship assistance that has made it possible for them to enroll in a school of their choice. The number of school tuition organizations operating in the state has shot up from 2 to 33. The legislation I am introducing today would extend this Arizona idea nation-wide, and I am pleased that my Arizona colleague, Congressman John Shadegg, will introduce this legislation this week in the House of Representatives. By way of tribute to President Bush's more comprehensive education proposal, I have given this bill the title, ``The Leave No Child Behind Tax Credit Act of 2001.'' The Leave No Child Behind Tax Credit Act would allow a family or business to claim a $250 tax credit for donations to qualified school tuition organizations. To qualify for that designation, an organization would have to devote at least 90 percent of its annual income to offering grants and scholarships for parents to use to send their children to the school of their choice. Scholarships awarded by such organizations could be used to offset tuition costs at a private school, or to pay the tuition costs families in most states must pay to enroll a child in a public school across district boundaries. This measure would move us toward an education policy that recognizes the vital importance of parental choice. It also recognizes and encourages the efforts that have been undertaken by public-spirited private citizens to find non-governmental solutions to the serious challenge of improving education in our country. These activists embody the vision set forth by President Bush in his inaugural address, the vision of responsible citizens building communities of service and a nation of character. Moreover, when parents are able to decide for themselves how to go about securing one of life's most vital goods, namely, education for their children, rather than having such decisions made for them by a bureaucracy, they become, in President Bush's memorable terms, citizens, not subjects. I believe that this legislation will help them to do that, and I am very pleased to introduce it today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I am sure it would. I know there are other Senators who are to follow beginning at a particular time. That would be very helpful. I certainly don't want to interrupt the Senator from Idaho because I know he has very important comments to make.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will certainly not object, although that will wipe out my opportunity to speak, as I understand it.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Barth, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the time of my remarks pertaining to the death of Dale Earnhardt.