Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first of all, let me declare that this is not a vote to support or not to support the troops. This is an authorization to the President to use military force against Serbia. If this were an appropriations bill to support a mission already underway, a mission which the President had ordered American troops to engage in, there is no question that I assume all of us would have to support that and would not vote against an appropriation of funds--at least I would not vote against an appropriation of funds--to support the troops. That is not what is involved here. This is an authorization for the President. Second, this is a vote to tell the President two things, I believe: No. 1, before you send American troops in harm's way, you need to have a dialog with the Congress and with the American people to explain two things. No. 1, you need to explain why there is a direct threat to the national security of the United States. And there isn't in this case. And, No. 2, you need to explain how your plan is going to achieve the goals. There are two goals there: to repeal an attack by Serbia against Kosovo and to force the Serbs to enter into a peace agreement. The particular kind of military campaign planned here cannot achieve either goal, in my opinion. The quasi-police forces going into Kosovo are not easily stopped or impeded in their progress by cruise missiles. And, second, I suggest that the kind of plan here of a 48-hour, or similar hour, campaign with cruise missiles against Milosevic is not going to force him to his knees to invite peacekeepers into Kosovo. My guess is that he will, in fact, rebel against it rather than succumb to it. For both of those reasons, I will vote ``no'' on the resolution.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise in support of S. 257, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. This straight-forward bill states that due to the increasing ballistic missile threat we face, ``It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).'' This bill is essentially identical to last year's measure which was filibustered by the minority and failed to gain cloture by a single vote. I would ask those who opposed the bill last year to consider the events over the intervening period which reinforce the arguments in favor of national missile defense: First, North Korea launched a three-stage missile last August that overflew Japan in an attempt to orbit a satellite. This missile, the Taepo Dong 1, has sufficient range to reach Alaska and Hawaii as demonstrated by the fact that its debris landed 4000 miles out in the Pacific. The range and the presence of a third stage was a surprise to the Intelligence Community, according to unclassified statements by Robert Walpole, National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs. Furthermore, successor missile, the Taepo Dong 2 is expected to be able to reach all of the American mainland and may be ready for testing this year. As the Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council noted last October, ``An ICBM threat from North Korea is looming.'' Second, Iran tested a medium range missile last July that is capable of reaching Israel and U.S. forces throughout the Middle East. This missile, the Shahab-3, may already be in production and Iran, with Russian assistance, is developing a longer-range missile capable of reaching Central Europe. Russian missile assistance to Iran has continued despite intensive U.S. efforts to halt this deadly trade. As CIA Director Tenet noted in testimony last month to the Armed Services Committee, ``Especially during the last six months, expertise and materiel from Russia has continued to assist the Iranian missile effort in areas ranging from training, to testing, to components.'' General Zinni, our CENTCOM commander has stated that Iran may have nuclear weapons within five years. Iran has been typically bloody-minded in its propaganda. During a military parade in Tehran last year, slogans were written on sides of missiles that read ``Israel should be wiped off the map'' and ``the USA can do nothing''. Moreover, last year's hopeful signs that Iranian moderates were gaining ascendancy now look much less clear. Third, Iraq has achieved its long-sought goal of escaping from UNSCOM inspections. Chief UN arms inspector Butler has stated that Iraq has resumed its weapons programs. There is now no inspection regime in place, the UN embargo is under mounting attack including by erstwhile allies, potential suppliers are eager to be of assistance, and Iraq retains a significant missile production and support infrastructure upon which to build. UN inspectors had uncovered drawings of multi- stage missiles and they are within a decade of an intercontinental missile capability. Fourth, China continues measured but steady improvement in its existing force of ICBMs which are already capable of hitting American cities. China's ICBMs have benefitted from both the outright theft and the unwisely permitted transfers of American space launch vehicle technology. Recently there have been disturbing published reports that China stole the design of the nuclear warhead of our Trident missile. This sophisticated multiple independently-targeted reentry vehicle or MIRV design has the capability to be a real force multiplier. Moreover, the technology that China obtains from the United States may not remain there. According to a Washington Times report on February 23, China has assisted North Korea's missile and space technology. China has also developed a habit of using ballistic missiles to intimidate its neighbors. On the eve of Taiwan's first democratic elections in 1996, China launched M-9 missiles to areas within 30 miles of Taiwan's two primary ports. A report just released by the Defense Department states that China is engaged in an intense buildup of ballistic and cruise missiles opposite Taiwan. Easy assumptions that the U.S. can enjoy a constructive relationship with China may be rooted in hope rather than reality. Beijing's recent crackdown on the fledgling Democracy Party serves as a reminder that China remains an authoritarian and potentially hostile regime with a highly uncertain future. Finally, the condition of Russia is cause for serious concern. Russia retains over 6000 strategic nuclear warheads and is still conducting limited modernization even as their strategic forces experience overall decay. While a return to cold war confrontation is unlikely today, the prospects for Russia's successful transition to democracy remain unclear. Their economic meltdown last summer further aggravated problems of nuclear weapons security, and command and control. The competence and morale and, hence, the safety of their nuclear forces are increasingly in question. The timeliness of the warnings of the bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission Report last summer have been more than borne out by these events. The North Korean and Iranian missile tests followed within weeks of that report. You will recall that the Rumsfeld Commission offered three major conclusions. (1) The missile threat to the United States is real and growing. (2) The threat is greater than previously assessed and a rogue nation could acquire the capability to threaten the U.S. with an ICBM within as little as five years. And (3) we may have little or no warning of the emergence of new threats. How prescient these conclusions were. How quickly they were borne out by subsequent events. Madam President, the administration is to be commended for its recognition that a missile threat to the United States exists. On January 20, Secretary of Defense Cohen stated that ``the United States will, in fact, face a rogue nation threat to our homeland against which we will have to defend the American people'' and that ``technological readiness will be the sole remaining criteria'' in deciding when to deploy a national missile defense system. But subsequent statements by administration spokesman have hedged on this forthright statement and suggested that other considerations may affect our deployment decision. For example, Secretary of State Albright has suggested that any deployment was conditional on the actual emergence of a threat and on the successful renegotiation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I've just outlined the threat and, in particular, the recent events which demonstrate that it is closer than many believed. There may well be rogue nations with the capability to reach American shores with weapons of mass destruction before we can deploy even a limited missile shield under the administration's most optimistic scenarios of successful tests and timely decisions. And even after Secretary Cohen's announcement, there has been slippage in a key program, namely the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites for missile detection and tracking. I joined several others Senators in expressing my concern at this unfortunate decision by the Air Force to delay development of this vial component of any missile defense architecture. If left unchanged, this decision will delay the deployment of any NMD system until 2006 when the first SBIRS-low satellites are launched. The bottom line is that the threat is developing more rapidly than our response to it. We cannot afford additional delays while our potential adversaries develop and deploy increasingly capable missiles. Second, Secretary Albright and other administration officials have spoken of the need to revise the ABM Treaty to accommodate deployment of a national missile defense. Mr. President, the ABM Treaty is an anachronism. It is the last relic of the cold war. Whatever its merit then, it has none now. In fact, some legal scholars believe the ABM Treaty is no longer binding on the United States since one of the original parties to the Treaty has ceased to exist. Renegotiation of the ABM Treaty is likely to prove a long and fruitless undertaking. Russia will not doubt hold out the prospect of START II ratification as they have done for six years now. The United States has purchased START II ratification several times over and we should not do so again. The economic situation in Russia today renders it unlikely that a START II level, let alone a START I level, of weapons is sustainable. To hold hostage the defense of the United States for the constantly receding mirage of START II would be strategic folly. Russia is not the target of American national missile defense except in so far as we seek the capability to defend against accidental or unauthorized launch. We can and should continue cooperative efforts with Russia, but they should not exercise a veto over our decision to defend ourselves against an Iran or a North Korea. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have advanced arms control arguments in opposition to missile defense. I suggest that American deployment of national missile defense will actually be a profoundly stabilizing step. If we have the prospect of defending our country from attack by weapons of mass destruction, we are less likely to have to resort to nuclear retaliation. Further, our deployment of a national missile defense will reduce the incentive for nuclear and missile proliferation by our prospective adversaries. It will reduce the ability of a North Korea to successfully blackmail us and our allies with its nuclear and missile programs. The bill before the Senate does not, however, address the ABM Treaty. The bill does not say what kind of architecture the missile defense system should have. It does not say where such a system should be located, or more generally, whether it should be based on land, at sea, or in space. It does not specify a date by which such a system should be deployed. It simply states a national goal, a goal on which bipartisan agreement should be possible. I am surprised and disappointed that the administration has chosen to oppose this bill, the purpose of which seems identical to the policy announced by the Secretary of Defense in January. I would have hoped that we could agree on the goal and turn our attention to the means to achieve it. There is an important debate that has only just begun as to the best means of providing a national missile defense. For example, one option that I don't think has received enough attention is a sea-based missile defense. While the best defense is obviously an integrated land, sea, and space combination, I think it is becoming more and more clear that sea-based systems offer our best near term solution to both theater and national missile defense needs. This is because of their operational flexibility, cost-effectiveness, ability to deploy rapidly where needed, and the potential for ascent-phase intercepts. As you will recall, the ABM Treaty precludes sea-and space-based defenses. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration is attempting to remain within the sacred scripture of the ABM Treaty by proposing one or two fixed land-based sites and hasn't vigorously pursued research and funding of more promising technologies. We need a better alternative. For my money, that alternative is to develop a robust theater navy system which can provide a limited defense against some strategic missiles possibly at an earlier date than the administration's proposals would allow. Such a system can be a bridge to a complete national defense later. For many years now, the Navy has been heavily involved in missile defense and has invested over $50 billion in the Aegis fleet which now comprises more than 60 ships with more than 5,000 missile launchers. The Navy is currently working on two missile defense programs to be based on Aegis ships--the area or ``Lower Tier'' system that will provide protection for point targets against short-range missiles, and the Theater Wide or ``Upper Tier'' system capable of defending areas as large as several countries against much longer range missiles. The Pentagon's current plans do not call for the Navy Theater Wide system to be deployed before 2010 but this timing is driven by budget constraints rather than technology development. In fact, both the navy and the Ballistic Missile Defense Office have recently concluded that if funding were increased by roughly $300 million per year, the system could be deployed between 2003 and 2005 without a significant increase in risk. Madam President, it is a more dangerous world out there than it was two or five years ago. Rogue nations have been able to pursue missile and nuclear programs with little effective hindrance from international proliferation regimes. The past twelve months have witnessed the first tests of the North Korean Taepo Dong I and the Iranian Shahab-3, the latter based on North Korea's No Dong design. Russia flirts with chaos and China once again reminds us that they remain a repressive, authoritarian regime, not a ``strategic partner'' in the administration's ill-chosen phrase. Both continue to assist rogue nations in their weapons of mass destruction. The administration's diplomacy has been inconsistent, distracted, and shortsighted at best. Its military programs are hobbled by outdated arms control strictures. Proliferation outstrips anti-proliferation efforts and rogue state offensive weaponry is advancing more rapidly than the administration's programs to counter them. The time has come for the United States to defend itself from the increasing missile threat that I have just described. The Cochran bill is the first step on this path. I urge my colleagues to support its passage. Madam President, I would like to respond to my friend from Rhode Island and to speak to the question of whether or not we ought to maintain a window of vulnerability, because that is basically what has been presented here. My friend acknowledged the threat to the United States, but said we ought to go slow; after all, this might cost a lot and technology is hard and the Russians are going to be nervous about it. Therefore, maybe we ought to go slow. Let me remind my colleagues what this amendment says. It is very simple: It is the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as is technologically possible, an effective missile defense capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack. Madam President, that is pretty straightforward. We are saying that when it is possible, we should deploy such a system. Why? Because we are threatened. Is that threat sometime off in the future? No. The threat is now. There is a window of vulnerability between the time that we are threatened and the time we can deploy a system to protect ourselves against the threat. Why is this important? We know that Russian missiles can reach the United States already. We know Chinese missiles can reach the United States, and we now know that the North Koreans probably have a missile that can at least reach some of the United States, and they are testing further missiles that would have a longer range and eventually have the capability of reaching the continental United States. Have we ever been threatened by any of these countries? Yes, as a matter of fact, we have. Back when the Chinese were launching missiles across Taiwan before the Taiwanese elections in an obvious effort to intimidate them, the United States decided to send carriers to the Taiwan Strait. One of the Chinese generals is supposed to have said to an American: ``You know, we believe in the long run that you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taiwan''--the implicit threat being, of course, if you get in our way, if we are ever serious about doing something to Taiwan, we can threaten to launch ballistic missiles against Los Angeles. Is it fair for the people of the United States, for their leaders, knowing this vulnerability exists, to do nothing about it, or to take the ``let's go slow'' approach that has just been suggested by my colleague? I think not. We would be negligent to the utmost degree if we understood that a threat existed, yet, we failed to protect the American people against a potential attack by a foreign country. That is the first and most important obligation of the U.S. Government--to protect the American people. We now know that ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction carried by them are the weapon of choice--and not just by our old adversary, the Russians, but by rogue nations. That is why we should not allow a piece of paper--the ABM Treaty--to get in the way of defending us. Back in the days my colleague was just referring to, the United States and Russia--whether for good reasons or bad--decided we would remain neutrally vulnerable to an attack by the other; thereby, we would create stability. That may or may not have worked in those days. I argue that there were other factors at play, but let's assume that was the reason. There were only two countries that could threaten each other; therefore, this was a workable arrangement. But to tie our hands behind our back mutually with the Russians doesn't account for today's reality in which there are other nations that could attack us. So while we politely agree with the Russians to maintain a lack of defense against ballistic missile attack, other countries have developed that capability and can threaten us, impede our foreign policy goals and, God forbid, even use the weapons against us with impunity because we don't have the means to defend ourselves. Some would argue that we have the nuclear retaliatory capability to respond to such an attack. Well, Madam President, I for one would not like to have to launch a massive nuclear retaliation against North Korea, or anyone else, as the price of being attacked myself. I would rather deter that attack in the first place by having a defense--a limited defense--which would threaten in no way the Russian system because it would easily overwhelm it, but which would provide limited protection against an attack by a rogue nation. I applaud Senator Cochran for his perseverance in continuing to bring this before the body, even though many on the other side of the aisle have not up until now allowed us to have a vote on this, and even though the administration strongly opposes it. What were the arguments posed against the amendment? First is that we should not rush to this, and I think I have already made the point. There is no doubt about the threat here. The window of vulnerability will be in the neighborhood of a minimum of 5 or 6 years. That is too long. Under the administration's plan, we would deploy, maybe in 2005, a system that could defend us--or probably in 2006. We are talking 6 to 7 years from now. I don't think that trying to deploy this system as soon as technologically possible is rushing in any sense that is bad for the United States. Rather, I see a 6- or 7-year window of vulnerability as the problem. I would like to rush even more. I wish we could create the technology tomorrow and deploy this tomorrow. I don't think waiting 6 or 7 years and being threatened during that interim is rushing too much. Secondly, my colleague suggested that we have to consider the threat. I don't know of anybody that denies the threat. The Rumsfeld Commission made it crystal clear that the Russians, Chinese, and the North Koreans have the capability, and that other countries will soon have the capability of reaching States of the United States. Now, that is a threat from weapons of mass destruction. How about the cost? Of course, we have to consider the cost. So how much is this going to cost? Well, about as much as it has cost us to go to Bosnia. The estimates there range from $12 billion to $20 billion. Whatever the cost is, certainly protecting the American people from ballistic missile attack ought to at least be as important as what we have spent in Bosnia, shouldn't it? How about 1 percent of the defense budget? That is what we are talking about. The administration is talking about adding about a billion dollars to a defense budget of $260 billion, or maybe $270 billion. So, Madam President, that is less than 1 percent of the defense budget. It is a fraction of the overall budget of the United States. If this represents the No. 1 threat to the United States from rogue nations, and if it is 1 percent of the defense budget, is that too much? How much is too much to protect the American people, I ask my colleagues? Can you put a number on it? I can't. Certainly, 1 percent of the defense budget is not too much. So first of all, there is a threat and there is a window of vulnerability. We are not rushing this, and we are not spending too much money on it. I challenge my colleagues to answer the question: How much is too much to protect the American people? When we don't even want to see one American life lost in a place like Bosnia, and we go to great lengths to protect our service people when we deploy them abroad because we don't want to lose one person, how much is too much to protect the people of Hawaii or Alaska, the States that are currently threatened by a country like North Korea, which is a country that absolutely cannot be predicted in terms of its behavior? The third issue is diplomacy. We have the ABM Treaty to deal with. I am going to get into a little bit more detail on that in just a moment because we certainly have to think about strategic stability. We don't want to do anything here that would be so disruptive to our relationships with other nations, that somehow we would find ourselves in greater danger than from this particular threat. I suggest to my colleagues that there is no upsetting of the strategic stability of the world if we proceed to defend ourselves, especially from rogue nations. As a matter of fact, I suggest that the deployment of missile defenses to protect the people of the United States will be profoundly stabilizing. If we have the prospect of defending our country against a ballistic missile attack, we are less likely to have to use massive nuclear retaliation, which is more destabilizing. Furthermore, our deployment of a national missile defense will reduce the incentive for nuclear and missile proliferation by our potential adversaries knowing that they can't succeed against us because we have this defense. That is one of the key things that brought down the Soviet Union-- knowing that we were committed to develop what was then the Strategic Defense Initiative to preclude the Soviet Union from ever succeeding in an attack against us. They basically packed it up. They said: We cannot compete with that; therefore, we are going to quit. It seems to me that a strong commitment to defend ourselves will have the right effect. It will cause other countries to get realistic about the ability to try to push the United States around by the development of these threatening weapons. They will decide that discretion is the better part of valor and will decide that they can spend their money on more useful things. It will certainly reduce the ability of countries like North Korea to successfully blackmail the United States and our allies because we can't defend ourselves against their weapons. Madam President, let me show, with the aid of a couple of charts, some things that I think are very interesting. This first chart shows the level of offensive weapons, nuclear warheads, permitted under different regimens today under treaties. This is the one we are currently under. It is called the START I. It said both Russia and the United States had to limit our nuclear warheads to about 6,000. So that is where we are. We proposed, and the United States has ratified, the START II treaty, which almost cuts this in half--down to 3,500. We have been waiting, I believe now for 6 years, for Russia to ratify the START II treaty. They haven't ratified it yet. We are worried here about making the Russians upset. How about us being upset? For a long time we have said: Let's create a more stable world; let's get rid of these dangerous weapons; you don't need them; we don't need them; let's reduce them down to 3,500--6 years ago. The Russians still haven't ratified. We have given a lot to the Russians as inducements for them to ratify. We bought the START II treaty many times. But they have yet to deliver. So we are still waiting. Some argue that, because it is so costly to maintain these weapons, actually the Russians would prefer to go right to a more realistic level that they could sustain, a START III level, about 2,000; maybe they can afford to keep 2,000 weapons around; and, therefore, we ought to just jump right over START II and go all the way down to START III. Let's examine that argument for a minute. It turns out that it is not the ABM Treaty at all, or the START II treaty, that is determining the strategic parity between the United States and Russia with respect to nuclear weapons. It turns out that this stability is created more by a very practical situation; that is, how much can the Russians afford? How much, frankly, can the United States afford? As it turns out, Igor Sergeyev, the Russian Minister of Defense, last summer told the Russian Security Council that Russia will be unable to muster a strategic nuclear force of more than 1,500 warheads by the year 2010 and that the reasons have nothing to do with armaments control. They can't afford it. Their economy is broken. They have no money. Much of their military force is in disrepair. And, indeed, the only part they have been modernizing is their strategic nuclear offensive capability. As a result, Sergeyev points out that this is the maximum level they are going to be able to maintain with or without an ABM Treaty, with or without a START II or START III treaty. So it is not what we do with respect to these arms control agreements that is going to dictate the parity of nuclear weapons between our two countries; it is the stark reality of what we can both afford. Frankly, this level of 1,500 to 2,000 is about where we are going to end up. So it doesn't matter whether we deploy another defensive system or not, or a defensive system against nuclear-tipped missiles or not. The fact is, the Russians are going down to this level because they can't afford to do anything else. I think, therefore, that the notion that offensive reductions in strategic nuclear warheads will not occur if this bill is passed is simply not borne out by the facts. This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with that. It is happening and will continue to happen regardless of what we do today. But let's suppose something. Let's make believe something--that some of the arguments similar to those that have just been made are correct and that ``Russia would likely retain thousands of nuclear warheads'' and somehow they would develop the money to do this that they would ``otherwise eliminate'' under these arms control agreements. Suppose some miracle occurs and Russia finds the resources to rejuvenate its strategic forces. What rationale would Russia have for doing this? Bear in mind that what we are talking about here is a national missile defense system. We qualified it, it says ``limited,'' and the reason is that we do not intend to build anything more, and we would not build anything more, than a limited system capable of providing a defense against a limited attack, an attack that we currently believe we are threatened by a rogue nation like North Korea, or, given the debate about China these days, perhaps a China, which doesn't have the same quantity of missiles that Russia does. There are other nations in the world that I will not list that also are developing this capability. Suppose that when we develop this system, Russia looks at it and says, ``How is this going to affect our strategic missile offensive warhead situation? Maybe we ought to have more warheads, because the United States system is going to degrade our capability of successfully attacking them.'' In other words, ``If they have a good defense, maybe we need more offense.'' I pointed out that the defense we are talking about is a minimal defense, perhaps capable of defending against just a handful of missiles, not the 6,000 warheads that the Russians may have today. If the strategic stability argument is to be believed, it has to be because the Russians would find the idea of the United States missile defense so threatening that they would have to retain thousands and thousands of warheads in order to be sure they could overcome our defense. So, let's examine the defensive side of the equation. I have another chart which I think will explain this situation. The offensive warheads again are in red. This is what was originally permitted under START I. You can see that we had about 2,000 warheads at the time. But START I eventually got to the level of 6,000 that I mentioned a while ago. That is where we are today--both countries in the neighborhood of authorized 6,000 warheads. That is the column in red. This is the way it began back when START I was actually ratified, and when the ABM Treaty was created. Back in those days, each side was limited by the ABM Treaty to 200 interceptor missiles. In 1974, at the time the treaty was negotiated, or signed, neither side having plans to deploy the full complement of defensive missiles it was allowed, that number was reduced to 100. That remains the limit today. So both countries have 100 authorized interceptors. Of course, Russia has built its system. We have not built our system. The limited missile defense system the United States is developing will be capable initially of shooting down, as I said, a handful of relatively unsophisticated warheads. The plans for ``Capability 1,'' as we will call it, called for deployment of 20 interceptor missiles to do this job--just 20 interceptor missiles. This is the system the administration claims can be deployed by 2005. Subsequently, this will grow to ``Capability 2,'' which, according to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, will consist of up to 100 interceptor missiles able to shoot down a somewhat larger number of sophisticated warheads. Although the concept of operations envisions firing several interceptors at each warhead, let's assume for the purpose of argument that each interceptor will work absolutely perfectly and kill one warhead. That is never going to be the case, but we will give the other side the absolute maximum benefit of the doubt. That means that, at most, as envisioned today, the United States system will be capable of destroying 100 Russian warheads, out of a START III total of no fewer than 2,000, or perhaps 1,500, if Minister Sergeyev is correct. Let's examine what that means. Back in 1974, when the ABM Treaty was created, there was a 10-to-1 ratio in terms of offensive to defensive, because you had about 2,000 warheads and 200-interceptor authorized capability, although we never built it. We have now built up to 2,000 warheads, and we have an authorized 100-interceptor capability. The blue line here is the defensive warheads, or the defensive missile capability. So you have 6,000 warheads existing, and a 60-to-1 ratio, because you can only intercept 100 at the absolute most, because you get 1 for 1. Under START II, that ratio would be 35 to 1, because you would have 3,500 warheads and you still have 100 authorized interceptors. Under START III, it would be 20 to 1, because you would have 2,000 warheads, 100 interceptors. Even if Minister Sergeyev is correct, as I said, you would have no more than 1,500 warheads in the Soviet Union and you would have 100 interceptors, for a 15-to-1 ratio--15-to-1 ratio. That is still greater than the ratio that existed at the time of the signing of the ABM Treaty, the time and the age we are trying to go back to and preserve. This is the way things ought to be--1974, a ratio of 10-to-1, offensive weapons to interceptors. That was strategic stability. That was the ratio, the parity that we wanted, and so we negotiated it. That is what is in jeopardy now. That is what is in jeopardy now, Madam President? If you give the other side the absolute maximum of a 1-to-1 kill ratio, you hit 100 missiles with 100 interceptors, the ratio today at 15 to 1 is still a greater ratio than 10 to 1. How could the Russians be more threatened today with a 15-to-1 ratio of offensive over defensive capability when they were perfectly happy to sign the ABM Treaty back in 1974 with a 10-to-1 ratio? How could this be more destabilizing? How could any Senator argue against the protection of the American people today because it would threaten the Russians because it would be destabilizing, it would create a worse situation than existed back in 1974, when the ratio then was 10 to 1? And it would be 50 percent more than that today--15 to 1. You cannot argue it; it is illogical. And for the Russians to contend otherwise would be irresponsible. Certainly for us to act on behalf of their irrational objections would be irresponsible on our part. Incidentally, I might add that this Nation that will allegedly be so angered and concerned about the deployment of our limited defense has the world's only ABM system, nuclear armed, recently upgraded, now in its fourth generation. It is deployed around Moscow with all 100 interceptor missiles allowed under the ABM Treaty. So how is it that a comparable U.S. system cannot be deployed without unduly angering the Russian leadership? They have 100 very modern interceptor missiles today. We have none. So if we have 100 just like they have, how is that going to be destabilizing? It is we who should be arguing about instability, not the Russians. I think the argument that strategic stability would be somehow upset if the United States did what the ABM Treaty authorizes, and that is create a capability to intercept first 20 and then 100 missiles, would hardly be destabilizing, at least to the point that we should delay or preclude ourselves from doing it. Obviously, the Russians will complain; it is in their interest to do so. Although the cold war has ended and we still enjoy a much more positive relationship with the Russians, all traces of rivalry have not disappeared. They still find it in their interest when possible to work in ways inimical to U.S. interests, and they know that our defenselessness against ballistic missile attack constrains our actions around the world, and that, in the Russian view, is not necessarily a bad thing. So one realistically understands that there will be objections, but one must realistically evaluate those objections. I wish my colleague who just spoke a few minutes ago, who so tortuously examined all of the reasons why we could not move forward with this--it is going to cost a lot, the technology is hard, diplomatically we need to think of how the Russians would feel--I wish that we were as concerned about the threat to the United States as we are the feelings of the Russian leadership. And I wish we were as concerned about our ability to project our national interests in our foreign policy against the threat of rogue nations such as the Irans and the Iraqs and the North Koreans of the world as we are about the feelings of the Russians. Russian soldiers and scientists understand the reality that is portrayed on these charts just as well as we do, and we know that a very limited missile defense system that we have the right to deploy in no way threatens strategic stability, no matter how loudly they may protest that it does. Our relationship with Russia is something that must be taken very seriously, but it cannot prevent us from taking reasonable actions to defend the American people against threats from other countries. The day that we conclude that unduly taking Russian concerns into account would inhibit our ability to defend ourselves is the day we have to move forward. So, in summary, strategic stability as defined by the other side in this debate, the ABM Treaty at the time that it was negotiated, which created a 10-to-1 advantage of strategic offensive over defensive weapons, that 10-to-1 ratio is not degraded even under the worst set of conditions that one might imagine in terms of our ability to defend ourselves here, or I should say even under the best of conditions because the ratio will still be 15 to 1 under this condition. It is more likely to be in the neighborhood of 20 to 1 or 35 to 1, the point being that no Russian could feel threatened with this kind of relationship if they didn't feel threatened back here anyway. And this defines the golden mean, remember. With respect to the cost, I think I have covered that. Even this administration is willing to add money to the budget to pay for what it believes will be a system that it can build when it is technologically feasible. Recognizing that the technology is hard, we provide in this amendment that it is our policy to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective missile defense system. So we are not saying deploy something that is not technologically possible. Yes, we know technology is hard, but we also know we can get there, the administration believes, by about the year 2005. So to the thought we should not be rushing forward with this amendment, I simply say how long do you want to leave the American people vulnerable? How valuable is it to you to leave the American people vulnerable to a missile attack, or to leave our Nation subject to blackmail, to the threat of such an attack; to prevent us, for example, from defending our friends in South Korea because the North Koreans have a nuclear weapon with a missile capable of hitting Alaska or Hawaii; to prevent us from defending Taiwan against Chinese aggression because they have missiles that can reach Los Angeles; to prevent us from supporting a country like Japan or any of the other interests that we may have around the world? Eventually, it boils down to this: We have an obligation to defend the American people. We will have the technological capability of doing that soon in the next century. There is a threat to the American people today. The cost of building a national missile defense is not prohibitive. Even if it were 1 percent of the defense budget, it would not be prohibitive--I submit, even if it were 10 percent, but it is obviously not going to cost that much. So given the nature of the threat, given the fact that technology is taken into account in this proposal, that it clearly is not going to cost too much even by this administration's analysis, and the fact that it will not disrupt strategic stability in the world, it seems to me that we would be derelict in our duty as representatives of the people not to move forward. The first step in moving forward is to adopt this simple resolution because, as is clear from the debate on the other side, unless we are committed to deploying a national missile defense, we are going to find excuses for not doing it. And until the Senate and the House of Representatives pass a resolution that says we are going to do this, the bureaucrats and the naysayers and those who don't want to do it will have good reason for not moving forward. We will not have spoken on the issue in a definitive way. That is why I applaud my colleague, Senator Cochran. He understands that we have to get an expression of serious intent in order to be able to convince the naysayers to move forward. And that is why adoption of this resolution is so important. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill when we have a chance to do so; we do it with great pride and with understanding that it fulfills the most important responsibility we have to the American people, and that is to provide for the national defense.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for Senator Brownback's legislation, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, regarding the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I believe it is important for the Senate to indicate its opposition to any unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinian Authority before Chairman Yasser Arafat's visit to the United States to meet with President Clinton. The legislation underscores three important points: First, the final political status of the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority can only be determined through negotiations and agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Second, any attempt to establish Palestinian statehood outside the negotiating process will invoke the strongest congressional opposition. Third, the President should unequivocally assert United States opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state making clear that a declaration would be a grievous violation of the Oslo accords and that a declared state would not be recognized by the United States. As we all know from reading the newspapers, this legislation is directed toward those Palestinians, including Chairman Yasser Arafat, who have made statements about the possibility of issuing a unilateral declaration on or about May 4 of this year. Last month a top Palestinian official said, ``We are moving forward in our preparation for the day, May 4th, the date of the declaration of the Palestinian state that would encompass a portion of Jerusalem. The cabinet announced that ``At the end of the interim period [the Palestinian Authority] shall declare the establishment of a Palestinian state on all Palestinian land occupied since 1967, with Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Palestinian state.'' On several occasions over the past year, the Clinton administration has refused to express U.S. opposition to the unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state, and has left it an open question as to whether the United States will recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. As an example, his intention to establish a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the President may have only encouraged this course when he said: ``[T]he Palestinian people and their elected representatives now have a chance to determine their own destiny on their own land.'' This legislation is intended to set the record straight. Despite the President's ambiguous statements, there should be no confusion among the Palestinian leadership about where the United States Congress stands on the issue of a unilateral declaration of statehood. Mr. President, this matter brings to the fore another issue in which the administration's mixed signals and inconsistent policy in the Middle East has enabled false hopes and fantasy to flourish. I am referring to the policy of the United States regarding the status of Jerusalem. With support from 90 percent of the members in both Houses, in 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, the principle feature of which was the requirement to establish an American embassy in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. Another key element of the legislation, which the administration has repeatedly refused to acknowledge, is the statement of U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem. The legislation states: ``It is the policy of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.'' Despite that the legislation is now law, the Clinton State Department has repeatedly refused to acknowledge this policy. So, with the acquiescence of the Clinton administration, the Palestinian Authority has chosen to ignore American law and continues to hold out hope that the United States will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, perhaps even the capital of a state established unilaterally. This will not happen. The United States Congress has a clear policy regarding Jerusalem. Today, we are stating our position regarding the unilateral establishment of a Palestinian state. While the administration's policies are confusing, ambiguous statements of general support for everything on the table, the Congress is clear and direct. No unilateral declaration. No Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem. I commend Senator Brownback and my colleague from Arizona, Matt Salmon, who is the principal sponsor of this legislation in the House of Representatives.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I hadn't intended to speak today, but given the fact that we have a little bit of time, I thought I would share one of the things that is on my mind as we come back to work following the Presidents' Day recess and almost a month of impeachment proceedings, which is what we were doing the last time I sat at this desk a week ago. There is one bit of unfinished business relating to the impeachment proceedings. Because the President was not removed from office, a lot of my constituents, over the course of this last week--people I visited with throughout the State of Arizona during the Presidents' Day recess--wondered what would happen, what would the precedent be, what would the standard be in court proceedings? What was the lesson, in other words, to be learned from the fact that the President was not removed? I had to stop and think about what I was answering them with. I said: We should not take from that the fact that you can lie or that you can obstruct justice, that you can engage in conduct that is designed to subvert justice, to take the law into your own hands. That would be the wrong lesson. I spoke to schoolkids. One of the questions that kept recurring was: If the President is not punished, then won't that lower the standard for the rest of the country in the future? My response, I think, is that we have to go back to what Henry Hyde was talking about when he first appeared before the Senate at the beginning of the impeachment trial, and that we need to talk to the American people about this as a piece of unfinished business. The Senate trial has come to a conclusion; the President will remain in office; the impeachment proceeding is behind us. And that is all as it should be. But it seems to me that because there is a perception that the President was not punished--I will come back to that in just a moment--that, therefore, somehow there will be a different standard applied in the future, perhaps in sexual harassment or sexual discrimination cases specifically, but more broadly within the criminal justice system. I think the piece of unfinished business is for all of us to commit ourselves to the proposition that the rule of law will not be diminished in the United States, that not only the lawyers and the judges in the judicial process but also all Americans, parents and teachers, talking to our children, and all of us working within whatever part of society we work, will recommit ourselves to the rule of law in the United States and ensure that this case does not create a bad precedent; that we treat this case, rather, as an aberration, as the exception that proves the rule, as a situation which is unique because it involved one person, the President, and an impeachment proceeding which is unique under our Constitution; but that we not accept it as a precedent that you can, as I said, take the law into your own hands, subvert justice, and then get away with it. In one sense, President Clinton has not really gotten away with his bad conduct. He was impeached by the House of Representatives, he was tried in the Senate, and half of the Senate voted on one of the articles to remove him from office. History will certainly judge that his reputation has been diminished as a result of his conduct. And for a person in political life, a President in particular, that is certainly some degree of punishment. In addition to that, the trust of his office has been diminished and he clearly has suffered some public opprobrium as a result of his conduct. Therefore, I think what we have to do is tell young people that, even though his conduct was not perceived by two-thirds of the Senate as sufficiently serious to warrant his removal from office, it does not mean that he wasn't punished. So, in that sense, the lesson to be learned is there will be bad consequences from bad action but they may not be the most severe consequences that can attach to the action. In one of the schools I spoke to, I said, ``You have a yearbook here, don't you?'' And they said, ``Yes.'' And I said, ``Suppose you did something pretty bad, but it wasn't quite bad enough to be kicked out of school. But the yearbook has your picture on it and it says below it: This person lied and did something bad in class and everybody thought he should not be trusted anymore. But it wasn't quite serious enough to kick him out of school.'' I said, ``That would be a pretty bad thing, for everybody who reads that yearbook for 50 years later to see that written under your picture in the yearbook. But it's not quite bad enough to throw you out of school.'' So, let's understand that what has happened to the President here is not good, it is bad, because he did something wrong. I am sure that people on both sides of the aisle will concede that his conduct was inappropriate. So in that sense he has been punished. But in a larger sense, because he was not removed from office, there is still this perception hanging out there that perhaps the rule of law has been diminished; that now it is no longer the case that one will be able to prosecute for perjury or obstruction of justice; that perhaps in a sexual harassment or discrimination case there will be some new precedent established, the ``Clinton standard,'' that you can actually walk very close to the line of telling the whole truth, and if you choose not to do it and you are clever enough about the way you phrase things, maybe you will be able to escape punishment. Perhaps people who were punished for perjury in sexual discrimination cases ought to be no longer punished under those same circumstances. That is what I am saying is our unfinished business. Every one of us who has something to say about it should say: No, this case does not stand for that. This was the President of the United States whom the Senate chose not to remove from office, the most severe thing that could occur to a President. And there were a lot of reasons for that. Some of our colleagues felt it would simply be too much of a disruption for our country. Some thought that the particular activity in this case was just not quite serious enough to warrant his removal. Those of us who disagreed with that did so, among other reasons, because we believed that allowing the President to remain in office would subvert the rule of law; that this would be used as an excuse for people to lie in the future; that there would not be as much adherence to the precedents in the past, of ensuring that people who take the law into their own hands are appropriately punished. That is one of the reasons that many of us voted guilty in this case. But I think even though we did not prevail and the President was not removed, that everyone in the Chamber would agree--all 100 of us would agree--that we do not want this case to stand for the proposition that you can subvert justice by impeding discovery or by lying, by giving false testimony; that you cannot do those things and expect that the rule of law in the future will be any less severe with respect to its consequences. As I said, this case must be deemed the exception that proves the rule because of its unique circumstances. In every way that those of us who are permitted to do so, we must uphold the rule of law in the country. Specifically, that means we must teach this to our young people. We must talk about it as lawmakers here, when we speak to the local Lions Club or local Rotary Club, wherever we may be speaking, that lawyers and judges in the country must strictly adhere to the law. Anyone who appears before a court as a litigant must themselves strictly adhere to these principles and never violate the law as it exists. And anyone who teaches with respect to what this means should take the position that it does not mean that one can take the law into one's own hands and succeed in subverting justice simply because of what did or did not happen to the President of the United States in this particular case. The rule of law is important to this country because it distinguishes us from almost every other country in the world. There are certainly other countries in which one can expect to get relatively fair justice, but in the United States we consider ourselves unique. We have, for over 210 years, protected the rule of law in this country. We have ensured that even the least among us can get equal justice under law. And this country has done a great deal to ensure that principle is true, whether it is in the Federal courts or the local courts of the country; whether it is with respect to the rich and the powerful and the famous or, as I said, the least among us. In our system, the law applies equally to everyone. We must ensure that remains the case. How many of us would want to submit our lives or our fortunes to the justice system--oh, let's just take one of the many countries south of us, for example--in the southern hemisphere? Or in Russia today, where one cannot even engage in commerce because there is not a rule of law which ensures that dispute resolution in commercial dealings will be done fairly? How many of us would want to be accused of a crime in one of those societies and have to defend ourselves or be sued in one of those societies and be assured that we would be dealt with in a fair way? In many of those countries today, unless you have the ability to bribe someone or to pay someone off, you cannot be assured of fair justice. In the United States today, even though we do not want to go to court, every one of us knows that if we have to go to court, we can at least expect that we will be dealt with fairly because truth-telling is at the bottom of the judicial process and truth-telling will be enforced. It will be maintained because it will be enforced, and we can point to many cases in which people who lied are now serving in jail because of their perjury. That is why it is important to maintain the rule of law in our country. That is what the rule of law is all about. That is why it is important, and that is why we have to sustain it. So, Mr. President, as I reflected on what my constituents were asking me, as I talked to them over the course of this last Presidents' Day recess in Arizona, and I thought about the importance of the rule of law in the United States to each one of us, and the questions that had been raised as a result of the fact that the President was not removed from office, I dedicated myself to talking about this, to writing about it, and to ensuring my constituents back home and, hopefully, people around the country will understand how important it is for all of us over the next weeks, months, and years to ensure that the rule of law is not diminished, is not subverted as a result of the Senate's action with respect to the impeachment of President Clinton. One could draw that conclusion, but we must not permit that conclusion to be drawn. It is up to us to maintain the rule of law in the United States, and I believe that because of the dedication to the principle of the rule of law and the fact that everyone in this country wishes it to remain strong, and the fact that all 100 of us in this Chamber, I am certain, and the Members in the House of Representatives as well, are dedicated to that proposition and do not want to see the result of this case diminish the rule of law; that all of us will rededicate ourselves to that principle and will do everything we can over the course, as I said, of the ensuing months and years to ensure the rule of law in this country remains strong and we will continue to provide in this country, as we have in the past over 200 years, equal justice for all. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. This case is about the rule of law--specifically, whether actions and statements of President Clinton in federal court proceedings have done such harm to the rule of law that he should be removed from office. I conclude in the affirmative, and reluctantly vote to convict on both Articles of Impeachment. Chairman Henry Hyde observed that the House of Representatives had come to the Senate ``as advocates for the rule of law, for equal justice under law, and for the sanctity of the oath.'' (145 Cong. Rec. S221 (January 14, 1999).) These are not just grand words. The rule of law refers to our judicial process, which is governed by uniform standards and procedures that we say will always be guaranteed and applied fairly and equally. We are willing to submit ourselves to this process because we have worked hard for 210 years to ensure that it produces impartial justice for all. Equal justice means that each of us, including the least among us, has rights that the state is bound to protect; and it surely includes the requirement that those who make the laws (including the President) must live under them like anybody else. And oaths are essential to the rule of law because the judicial process is about seeking the truth; and that requires that we be able to trust what is said. The oath formalizes the commitment to tell the truth, and the whole truth--a commitment so important that its violation is itself a crime. I believe there are two questions to be answered. The first is whether the President impermissibly took the law into his own hands in a federal civil rights case and seven months later before a federal grand jury in order to suppress the truth. The second question is whether, if the President did engage in the impeachable conduct, it is a breach serious enough to warrant removal from office. The Constitution permits only one vote: to acquit or convict. This leaves some in the anomalous position of determining guilt on an impeachable offense, but having to vote to acquit because they deem the offense insufficiently serious to warrant removal. While the fact that the offense is impeachable should itself resolve the issue of ``proportionality,'' I would not consider it impermissible to reach a contrary conclusion, as some will do in this case. For my part, I answer both questions in the affirmative. The President ``wilfully provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony'' under oath to a grand jury and he ``prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice.'' (H. Res. 611). While the House of Representatives asserted that the President's actions were criminal, violations of specific criminal statutes are not essential for wrongful conduct to constitute the ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' that demonstrate unfitness to continue as Chief Executive. Most authorities agree a President cannot be prosecuted while in office for crimes allegedly committed during his term. So, for example, whether a lie under oath would necessarily later result in a criminal perjury conviction cannot be known with certainty, and an impeachment trial is not an effective forum for establishing criminal guilt. It is conduct, not a proven crime, that is the basis for impeachment. This is one of the reasons why it is clear that each Senator may apply his or her standard of proof--it need not be the criminal standard ``beyond a reasonable doubt.'' (See Senate Proceedings in the Impeachment Trial of Judge Claiborne, S. Doc. No. 99-48, at 150.) Moreover, because the Senate constrained the House of Representatives as it did--by limiting the number of witnesses that could be deposed, by effectively foreclosing other discovery, and by precluding ``live'' testimony--it would be unfair to impose a ``beyond reasonable doubt'' standard. The President's counsel argued that the Senate should not consider Article I because the House of Representatives defeated a perjury count relating to the Jones civil action. But Article I also included allegations of ``perjurious, false, and misleading'' statements in the Jones case; so the argument is meritless. Moreover, the President's falsehoods in the Jones civil suit also formed part of his strategy to obstruct justice. What is striking about this case is the President's persistent, sustained, carefully calculated, deliberate, and callous manipulation of the judicial process for over a year. Without attempting to summarize all of the evidence, I conclude that the President lied before the federal grand jury about (1) the nature of details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (2) his assertion that he told the truth in the Jones deposition; (3) the false and misleading statements that he allowed his lawyer to make to a federal judge in the Paula Jones civil case; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of his aides who were potential grand jury witnesses. And it seems clear to me that the President obstructed justice--that he corruptly: (1) encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to execute a false affidavit; (2) encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie if called as a witness; (3) encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to conceal gifts; (4) encouraged cooperation of Ms. Lewinsky through job assistance; (5) allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements about the affidavit; (6) attempted to influence the testimony of his secretary, Ms. Currie; and (7) attempted to influence the testimony of other aides. The final question is whether the President should be removed for his actions. As a preliminary matter, there can be no doubt that perjurious, false, and misleading statements made under oath in federal court proceedings are indeed impeachable offenses. The fact that the House of Representatives reached this conclusion, of course, establishes the precedent as to the kind of conduct in this case. But, it is also confirmed by the impeachment and conviction of federal judges--of Judge Harry Claiborne, removed in 1986 for filing a false income tax return under penalty of perjury, of Judge Walter Nixon, removed in 1989 for perjury before a grand jury, and of Judge Alcee Hastings, removed in 1989 for perjury related to financial misconduct. I cannot agree with those colleagues who assert that there is a different standard for a President--that it would require a more egregious kind of perjury to remove a President than a judge. Nothing in the Constitution suggests such a double standard. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, said ``there is no crime more extensively pernicious to society'' than perjury, precisely because it ``discolors and poisons the streams of justice.'' (Grand Jury Charge (C.C.D.N.Y. (Apr. 5, 1792)) (Jay, C.J.), in 2 The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789- 1800: The Justices on Circuit: 1790-1794, at 253, 255 (Maeva Marcus ed., 1988).) As to obstruction of justice, on which there is no other direct precedent, Chief Justice Rehnquist, our presiding officer, in his history of impeachment, Grand Inquests, wrote that ``the counts relating to the obstruction of justice and to the unlawful use of executive power [by President Nixon] were of the kind that would surely have justified removal from office.'' The House mangers pointed out, accurately, that even though perjury and obstruction of justice are not specifically listed as impeachable offenses in the Constitution, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines treat these offenses more seriously than they do the crime of bribery--one of two specifically enumerated impeachable offenses. Significantly, where bribery is committed in connection with a judicial proceeding (such as bribing a witness in a case), its seriousness under the Guidelines rises to that of perjury and obstruction. When misdeeds, in other words, take place in connection with a judicial process, to try to affect or control that process, they get extra attention in our legal system. They are not simply brushed aside. Far from it. Perjury and obstruction are like bribery; they are ``other high crimes'' by any reasonable construction. The President's counsel argued that the President's conduct could not be impeachable because he did not abuse the power of his office in conducting ``matters of state,'' and did not violate the public trust. But impeachable offenses are not limited to the President's conduct of ``matters of state.'' If this were so, Richard Nixon could never have been impeached. If this were so, a twenty dollar bribe for a Senator to vote for a bill would be impeachable, while a million dollar bribe to cover up political dirty tricks would not be. It simply cannot be, as some have argued, that the only impeachable offenses are those that can only be committed by the President. If a President commits murder, can he not be removed? Must we wait until his term is over to deal with his crime? It is clear that seriously wrongful official conduct is impeachable. But it is just as clear that impeachment cannot be limited to that. It is not only the exercise of presidential power but also the violation of a public duty that can constitute impeachable conduct. As the head of the Executive Branch, the President has the duty under Article II of the Constitution to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' The 1974 House Judiciary report on the ``Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment'' summarized that impeachment of a President can ``be predicted only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.'' (Staff of House Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. (Comm. Print 1974), Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, at 24.) Surely the violation of constitutional obligations can constitute high crimes or misdemeanors for which the President may be impeached. And surely, such violation would constitute an abuse of trust by the Chief Executive. By his oath of office and Article II responsibilities, President Clinton is supposed to see that the sexual discrimination laws are faithfully executed. But he thought the Jones case was illegitimate, so he took the law into his own hands. His conduct in this case clearly violated his public duties, his oath, and the public trust. And it interfered with the proper functioning of another branch of the government. The same is true for his deliberate efforts to impede legitimate discovery efforts in federal court proceedings. Such action ``is incompatible with . . . the constitutional form and principles of our government,'' as the 1974 House Judiciary report said. It simply cannot be that a President who wrongfully interferes with the proper functioning of another branch of our government by attempting to subvert justice in federal court proceedings cannot be impeached because he did not do it as President, but, rather, as a citizen. That the underlying conduct covered up is sexual, is, if anything, an aggravating not a mitigating factor. In sex-discrimination litigation, where there is frequently no corroboration for the plaintiff, a defendant who lies can easily subvert justice. Had the blue dress not been found, with its incontrovertible tangible evidence, I doubt Paula Jones would have gotten a dime in settlement. Judgements about the severity of the impeachable conduct in this case will lead different Senators to reach different conclusions. That is why some of us are willing to say reasonable people can differ. For those who fear the long-term consequences to the rule of law, however, I believe there can be only one result. Anyone who so willfully, callously, and persistently connived to deny the federal court and grand jury the truth, and who used and abused the highest office in the land to advance his personal cover-up is not only no longer worthy of trust--which all agree is essential to the conduct of his office--but also must be removed to avoid the perpetuation of a legal double standard. If federal judges (such as Judges Clairborne, Nixon, and Hastings) are removed for similar conduct; if average Americans are imprisoned for it, can the rule of law long survive ``special exceptions'' for powerful people we like, or who are doing a good job, or who hold elective office? None of these rationalizations are defenses to illegal or impeachable conduct. As I said, sexual harassment cases are precisely the kind of judicial proceedings that demand the maximum cooperation of and truth-telling by the defendant, because of the lack of third-party witnesses or corroborating evidence. In these cases, justice is denied if obstruction, witness tampering, or perjury prevent the truth from coming out. Can anyone say this is not serious? To what standard of seriousness does it not rise? How many plaintiffs will have to lose their sexual harassment, domestic violence, or sexual assault cases because defendants lie and obstruct justice (and there is no blue dress to keep them honest) before it becomes serious? An acquittal in this case will make it harder to deal properly with similar conduct in the future. We will be hard pressed to perpetuate a double standard, so the lowest common denominator of conduct will be established as the permissible norm. And this cannot help but weaken the ability of courts to enforce truth-telling and prevent obstruction of justice. The precedent set by this case may not change the law overnight, but this unforgettable episode is now part of the institutional life of our country. The chief magistrate perverted justice and remained in power. The lesson is corrosive. Like water dripping on a rock, it eventually makes a deep hollow in the American justice system. It is true the President could be sent to jail later. How does that validate his right to appoint judges and be head of U.S. law enforcement now? How does that square with his leadership of the armed forces right now, as our Commander-in-Chief? Should the standard for the President not be at least as high as for those he appoints and leads? In the end, my colleagues who would censure rather than convict the President are right about one thing: the President's conduct is ``unacceptable.'' But, if conduct is unacceptable, we cannot accept it--meaning, we have to do something about it that does not leave it stand. And under our Constitution that means removal of the President through conviction on the Articles of Impeachment. Henry Hyde closed the House case by warning that public cynicism is the greatest threat we face. Our failure to remove the President will only fuel the cynicism of Americans such as Louie Valenzuela of Glendale, Arizona. He was quoted recently in a man-on-the-street interview about this case. ``They talk about justice,'' he told the Arizona Republic. ``They talk about doing the right thing,'' said Mr. Valenzuela. ``But they always look the other way when someone rich, famous or powerful does something wrong. Look at O.J. Simpson. Clinton will be next. Asi es. (That's just the way it is.)'' That is not the way it has to be. But how it is, is up to us.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I add my expression of appreciation to the Chief Justice and the officers of the court who had a role in this proceeding--the House managers, the counsel for the White House, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr--for their honorable service. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize an Indian water rights settlement agreement that was entered into on May 4, 1998 by the Gila River Indian Community of Arizona and the Phelps Dodge Corporation. This bill is identical to the legislation I introduced in the last session of Congress. As I said upon introduction last year, this particular settlement is part of a much larger, comprehensive settlement process that will eventually settle all claims of the Gila River Indian Community. I strongly endorse the settlement process and want to encourage all parties to continue their negotiations. Although I am introducing this measure today as free-standing legislation, it is inextricably linked to the outcome of the rest of the negotiations. So while I am encouraged by the settlement process, I am not yet comfortable with pieces of it moving independently. As I did last session, I put this bill on the table so that all interested parties may have a document around which to gather and continue their conversations. While this particular piece of the settlement may be further along than others, I do not want to see pieces move separately. My preference is that the parties arrive at a comprehensive settlement that fully and finally addresses all aspects of the Gila River Indian Community's claim. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this Sunday, February 14, 1999, marks the eighty-seventh anniversary of the granting of statehood to the great state of Arizona. On this historic occasion, I propose to amend, with the attached bill, the act of Congress which in 1910 set in motion Arizona's entry into the Union. The proposed amendment makes two small but important modifications to the Arizona Enabling Act relating to the administration of state trust funds. These changes have been requested by Governor Hull, the state legislature, and the citizens of Arizona. Mr. President, the Arizona Enabling Act required the state to establish a permanent fund collecting the proceeds of the sale of trust land and the land's mineral and other natural products. The principal of the fund is not expendable for any purpose. Instead, it is invested in interest-bearing securities, and the interest is used to support the financial needs of the beneficiaries. Mr. President, Arizona is currently prevented from maximizing the benefits of the permanent fund. The state could improve management, and generate more revenues for the beneficiaries, by gaining authorization to invest part of the fund in stocks, and to reinvest some earnings to offset inflation. This amendment would allow the state treasurer to preserve the real value of the fund by reinvesting an amount equal to the rate of inflation, thereby providing higher payments to beneficiaries over time. This amendment is similar to the change that was granted to New Mexico in 1997. It was approved by Arizona voters on November 3, 1998. Mr. President, the second modification to the Arizona Enabling Act contained in this bill would allow the state to expend monies from the Miners' Hospital Endowment Fund to benefit the Arizona Pioneers' Home. Current law prohibits the commingling of funds associated with state- trust lands. Insufficient funds exist in the Miners' Hospital Endowment Fund to build and operate a separate hospital for disabled miners, but disabled miners have been cared for at the Arizona Pioneers' Home since 1929. Miners who meet the statutory admission requirements for the Hospital for Disabled Miners will continue to be admitted to the Arizona Pioneers' Home on a priority basis. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to transfer title to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in Yuma, Arizona from the Federal government to the project beneficiaries. If you think this sounds like deja vu, you would be correct--it is. In May of 1998, during the 105th Congress, I introduced the same bill. The version I introduce today is the same version the passed the Senate at the end of last Congress. The bill was approved by all the relevant House and Senate Committees, passed by the Senate, included in a package of similar bills in the House, but, for reasons that I have not been able to determine, never managed to get signed into law. And this particular project transfer was one Regional Director Bob Johnson called ``low hanging fruit.'' In a meeting in my office, he assured me that the Wellton-Mohawk project was a ``perfect example'' of the kind of project that should transfer under the administration's 1995 Framework for Transfer. So this is exactly the kind of project the Department of the Interior should transfer project title from the Department to the project beneficiaries. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator John McCain for cosponsoring this bill with me and 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 a bill to transfer title to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in Yuma, Arizona from the Federal government to the project beneficiaries. If you think this sounds like deja vu, you would be correct--it is. In May of 1998, during the 105th Congress, I introduced the same bill. The version I introduce today is the same version the passed the Senate at the end of last Congress. The bill was approved by all the relevant House and Senate Committees, passed by the Senate, included in a package of similar bills in the House, but, for reasons that I have not been able to determine, never managed to get signed into law. And this particular project transfer was one Regional Director Bob Johnson called ``low hanging fruit.'' In a meeting in my office, he assured me that the Wellton-Mohawk project was a ``perfect example'' of the kind of project that should transfer under the administration's 1995 Framework for Transfer. So this is exactly the kind of project the Department of the Interior should transfer project title from the Department to the project beneficiaries. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator John McCain for cosponsoring this bill with me and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator John McCain as an original cosponsor of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act of 1999. Senator McCain's legislation would give seniors relief from the Social Security earnings limitation contained in current law. During the 1992 presidential campaign, President Clinton said that America must ``lift the Social Security earnings test limitation so that older Americans are able to help rebuild our economy and create a better future for us all.'' I could not agree more. Yet, despite 6 years of urging from many members of Congress and millions of Americans, the President appears reluctant to make good on this campaign promise. So, it has fallen to Senator McCain to pursue this issue, as he has for several years. The Social Security Earnings Limitation (SSEL) was created during the Depression in order to move older workers out of the labor force and to create job opportunities for younger workers. Obviously, this situation no longer exists. In an effort to address this problem, legislation was enacted in 1996, which I supported, which will raise the Social Security earnings limitation to $30,000 by 2002. However, I believe we must do more. Senator McCain's bill would repeal the entire limitation immediately. Currently, under the SSEL, senior citizens aged 62 to 64 lose $1 in benefits for every $2 they earn over the $9,600 limit. Seniors aged 65- 99 lose $1 in benefits for every $3 they earn over $15,500 annually. When combined with federal and state taxes, a senior citizen earning just over $14,000 per year faces an effective marginal tax rate of 56 percent. However, when combined with the President's tax on Social Security benefits passed in 1993, a senior's marginal tax rate can reach 88 percent--twice the rate millionaires pay! Some lawmakers apparently forget the Social Security is not an insurance policy intended to offset some unforeseen future occurrence; rather, it is a pension with a fixed sum paid regularly to the retirees who made regular contributions throughout their working lives. Social Security is a planned savings program to supplement income during an individual's retirement years. I believe no American should be discouraged from working. Such a policy violates the principles of self-reliance and personal responsibility on which America was founded. Regrettably, American's senior citizens re severely penalized for attempting to be financially independent. When senior citizens work to pay for the high cost of health care, pharmaceuticals and housing, they are penalized like no other group in our society. Senior citizens possess a wealth of experience and expertise acquired through decades of productivity in the work place. Companies hiring seniors have noted their strong work ethic, punctuality, flexibility. Their participation in the workforce can add billions of dollars to our Nation's economy. To remain competitive in the global marketplace, America needs for its senior citizens to be involved in the economy: working, producing, and paying taxes to the federal government. A law which discourages this is not just bad law, it's wrong--and it hurts not only seniors but all Americans. I will work with Senator McCain in the 106th Congress to enact this legislation which will lift the unjust and counterproductive burden from the backs of our senior citizens. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kyl and Helms to introduce again this year the Senior Citizen's Freedom to Work Act. Our bill would fully repeal the erroneous Social Security Earnings test. Since coming to the Senate in 1987, I have been working to eliminate the discriminatory and unfair earnings test. I am pleased that in 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law my bill, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act. This legislation took a step in the right direction by increasing the earning threshold for senior citizens from $11,520 to $30,000 by the year 2002. Now it is time to eliminate the unjust earnings test in its entirety. Most Americans are shocked and appalled when they discover that older Americans are penalized for working. Nobody should be penalized for working or discouraged from engaging in work. Yet, this is exactly what the Social Security earnings test does to our nation's senior citizens. The Social Security earnings test punishes Americans between the ages of 65 and 70 for their attempts to remain productive after retirement. The Social Security earnings test mandates that, for every $3 earned by a retiree over the established limit of $15,500 in 1999, the retiree loses $1 in Social Security benefits. This is clearly age discrimination, and it is very wrong. Due to this cap on earnings, our senior citizens, many of whom exist on fixed, low-incomes, are burdened with a 33.3 percent tax on their earned income. When this is combined with Federal, State, local, and other Social Security taxes, it amounts to an outrageous 55 to 65 percent tax bite or and even higher. This earnings limit is punitive and serves as a tremendous disincentive to work. An individual who is struggling to make ends meet on approximately $15,500 a year should not be faced with an effective marginal tax rate which exceeds 55 percent. The Social Security earnings test is a relic of the Great Depression, designed to move older people out of the workforce and create employment for younger individuals. This is an archaic policy and should no longer be our goal. Many senior citizens can make a significant contribution, and often their knowledge and experience compliments or exceeds that of younger employees. Tens of millions of Americans are over the age of 65, and together they have over a billion years of cumulative work experience. These individuals have valuable experience to offer our society, and we need them. In addition experts predict a labor shortage when the ``baby boom'' generation ages, and it is evident that employers will have to develop new sources of labor as our elderly population continues to grow much faster than the number of workers entering the workforce. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ``retaining older workers is a priority in labor intensive industries, and will become even more critical as we approach the year 2000.'' It seems counterproductive and foolish to keep willing, diligent workers out of the American workforce. Our country must continue to support pro-work, not pro-welfare policies. More importantly, many of the older Americans penalized by the earnings test need to work in order to cover their basic expenses: health care, housing and food. Many seniors do not have significant savings or a private pension. For this reason, low-income workers are particularly hard-hit by the earnings test. It is important to note that wealthy seniors, who have lucrative investments, stocks, and substantial savings, are not affected by the earnings limit. Their supplemental ``unearned'' income is not subject to the earnings threshold. The earnings limit only affects seniors who must work and depend on their earned income for survival. Finally, let me stress that repealing the burdensome and unfair earnings test would not jeopardize the solvency of the Social Security funds. Opponents who claim otherwise are engaging in cruel scare tactics. The Social Security benefits which working seniors are losing due to the earnings test penalty are benefits they have rightfully earned by contributing to the system throughout their working years before retiring. These are benefits which they should not be losing because they are trying to survive by supplementing their Social Security income. Furthermore, certain studies indicate that repealing the earnings test would actually result in a net increase of $140 million in federal revenue because more seniors would be earning wages and paying income taxes on these wages. Mr. President, there is no compelling justification for denying economic opportunity to an individual on the basis of age. It is quite evident that the earnings test is outdated, unjust and discriminatory. I am pleased that this Congress will be focusing on the overall structure of the Social Security system and working together for solutions which would strengthen the system for the seniors of today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is absolutely crucial that we include elimination of the unfair earnings test in any Social Security bill we enact this year. I find it encouraging that President Clinton indicated in his State of the Union Address that he is finally ready to address this issue and allow seniors the freedom to work without being unfairly penalized. As many of my colleagues may recall, this was a campaign initiative of President Clinton in 1992 and I am pleased that it appears that we may finally have a bipartisan victory for eliminating this unfair penalty on working seniors in 1999. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to get this accomplished for America's seniors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an education proposal that will increase parental and student choice, educational quality, and school safety. A colleague from the Arizona delegation, representative Matt Salmon, is today introducing this proposal in the House of Representatives. The ``K through 12 Community Participation Act'' would offer tax credits to families and businesses of up to $250 annually for qualified K through 12 education expenses or activities. Over the last 30 years, Americans have steadily increased their monetary commitment to education. Unfortunately, we have not seen a corresponding improvement in the quality of the education our children receive. Given our financial commitment, and the great importance of education, these results are unacceptable. Mr. President, I believe the problem is not how much money is spent, but how it is spent, and by whom. The K through 12 Community Participation Act addresses the problem of falling education standards by giving families and businesses a tax incentive to provide children with a higher quality education through choice and competition. The problem of declining education standards is illustrated by a 1998 report released by the Education and Workforce Committee of the House of Representatives, Education at the Crossroads. This is the most comprehensive review of federal education programs ever undertaken by the United States Congress. It shows that the federal government's response to the decline in American schools has been to build bigger bureaucracies, not a better education system. According to the report, there are more than 760 federal education programs overseen by at least 39 federal agencies at a cost of $100 billion a year to taxpayers. These programs are overlapping and duplicative. For example, there are 63 separate (but similar) math and science programs, 14 literacy programs, and 11 drug-education programs. Even after accounting for recent streamlining efforts, the U.S. Department of Education still requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork per year--this is the equivalent of 25,000 employees working full time. States get at most seven percent of their total education funds from the federal government, but most states report that roughly half of their paperwork is imposed by federal education authorities. The federal government spends tax dollars on closed captioning of ``educational'' programs such as ``Baywatch'' and Jerry Springer's squalid daytime talk show. With such a large number of programs funded by the federal government, it's no wonder local school authorities feel the heavy hand of Washington upon them. And what are the nation's taxpayers getting for their money? According to the report, Around 40 percent of fourth graders cannot read; and 57 percent of urban students score below their grade level. Half of all students from urban school districts fail to graduate on time, if at all. U.S. 12th graders ranked third from the bottom out of 21 nations in mathematics. According to U.S. manufacturers, 40 percent of all 17-year-olds do not have the math skills to hold down a production job at a manufacturing company. The conclusion of the Education at the Crossroads report is that the federally designed ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to education is simply not working. Mr. President, I believe we need a federal education policy that will: Give parents more control. Give local schools and school boards more control. Spend dollars in the classrooms, not on a Washington bureaucracy. Reaffirm our commitment to basic academics. My state of Arizona has led the way with education tax credit legislation passed in 1997. This state law provides tax credits that can be used by parents and businesses to cover certain types of expenses attendant to primary and secondary education. Mr. President, today, Representative Salmon and I are reintroducing a form of the Arizona education tax-credit law. The K through 12 Community Participating Education Act would be phased in over four years and would encourage parents, businesses, and other members of the community to invest in our children's education. Specifically, it offers every family or business a tax credit of up to $250 annually for any K through 12 education expense or activity. This tax credit could be applied to home schooling, public schools (including charter schools), or parochial schools. Allowable expenses would include tuition, books, supplies, and tutors. Further, the tax credit could be given to a ``school-tuition organization'' for distribution. To qualify as a school-tuition organization, the organization would have to devote at least 90 percent of its income per year to offering available grants and scholarships for parents to use to send their children to the school of their choice. How would this work? A group of businesses in any community could join forces to send sums for which they received tax credits to charitable ``school-tuition organizations'' which would make scholarships and grants available to low income parents of children currently struggling to learn in unsafe, non-functional schools. Providing all parents--including low income parents--increased freedom to choose will foster competition and increase parental involvement in education. Insuring this choice will make the federal education tax code more like Arizona's. It is a limited but important step the Congress and the President can--and I believe, must--take. Mr. President, it's clear that top-down, one-size fits all, big government education policy has failed our children and our country. This tax-credit legislation will refocus our efforts on doing what is in the best interests of the child as determined by parents, and will give parents and businesses the opportunity to take an important step to rescue American education so that we can have the educated citizenry that Thomas Jefferson said was essential to our health as a nation.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to ensure that crime victims are treated with fairness, dignity, and respect, I rise to introduce, along with Senator Feinstein, a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to establish and protect the rights of victims of violent crime. I would like to update the members on the latest form of the Crime Victims Rights Amendment and outline our plans for the 106th Congress. This joint resolution is the product of extended discussions with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Senators Hatch and Biden, the Department of Justice, the White House, law enforcement officials, major victims' rights groups, and such diverse scholars as Professors Larry Tribe and Paul Cassell. As a result of these discussions, the core values in the original amendment remain unchanged, but the language has been refined to better protect the interest of all parties. Before I discuss the amendment in detail, I would like to thank Senator Feinstein for her efforts to advance the cause of crime victims' rights and for her very valuable work on the language of the amendment. She has been a tireless and invaluable advocate for the amendment. Mr. President, the scales of justice are imbalanced. The U.S. Constitution, mainly through amendments, grants those accused of crime many constitutional rights, such as a speedy trial, a jury trial, counsel, the right against self-incrimination, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to subpoena witnesses, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to due process under the law. The Constitution, however, guarantees no rights to crime victims. For example, victims have no right to be present, no right to be informed of hearings, no right to be heard at sentencing or at a parole hearing, no right to insist on reasonable conditions of release to protect the victim, no right to restitution, no right to challenge unending delays in the disposition of their case, and no right to be told if they might be in danger from release or escape of their attacker. This lack of rights for crime victims has caused many victims and their families to suffer twice, once at the hands of the criminal, and again at the hands of a justice system that fails to protect them. The Crime Victim Rights Amendment is a constitutional amendment that would bring balance to the judicial system by giving crime victims the rights to be informed, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their ordeal--the least the system owed to those it failed to protect. Mr. President, the current version, which is the 62d draft of the amendment, contains the rights that we believe victims should have: The amendment gives victims the rights: To be notified of the proceedings; To attend all public proceedings; To be heard at certain crucial stages in the process; To be notified of the offender's release or escape; To consideration for a trial free from unreasonable delay; To an order of restitution; To have the safety of the victim considered in determining a release from custody; and To be notified of these rights and standing to enforce them. These rights are the core of the amendment. Mr. President, if reform is to be meaningful, it must be in the U.S. Constitution. Since 1982, when the need for a constitutional amendment was first recognized by a Presidential Task Force on Victims of Crime, 32 states have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of about 80 percent. These state measures have materially helped protect crime victims; but they are inadequate for two reasons: First, each amendment is different, and not all states have provided protection to victims; a Federal amendment would establish a basic floor of crime victims' rights for all Americans, just as the Federal Constitution provides for the accused. Second, statutory and State constitutional provisions are always subservient to the Federal Constitution; so, in cases of conflict, the defendants' rights--which are already in the U.S. Constitution--will always prevail. Our amendment will correct this imbalance. It is important to note that the number one recommendation in a recent 400 page report by the Department of Justice on victims rights and services that ``the U.S. Constitution should be amended to guarantee fundamental right for victims of crime.'' The report continued: ``A victims' rights constitutional amendment is the only legal measure strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in victims' rights laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the State and Federal levels.'' Further, ``Granting victims of crime the ability to participate in the justice system is exactly the type of participatory right the Constitution is designed to protect and has been amendment to permanently ensure. Such rights include the right to vote on an equal basis and the right to be heard when the government deprives one of life, liberty, or property.'' Until crime victims are protected by the United States Constitution, the rights of victims will be subordinate to the rights of the defendant. Indeed, the National Governors Association--by a vote of 49- 1--passed a resolution strongly supporting a constitutional amendment for crime victims. The resolution stated: ``Despite . . . widespread State initiatives, the rights of victims do not receive the same consideration or protection as the rights of the accuses. These rights exist on different judicial levels. Victims are relegated to a position of secondary importance in the judicial process.'' The resolution also stated that ``The rights of victims have always received secondary consideration within the U.S. Judicial process, even though States and the American people by a wide plurality consider victims' rights to be fundamental. Protection of these rights is essential and can only come from a fundamental change in our basic law: the U.S. Constitution.'' Some may say, ``I'm all for victims' rights but they don't need to be in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is too hard to change. All we need to do is pass some good statutes to make sure that victims are treated fairly.'' But statutes have been inadequate to restore balance and fairness for victims. The history of our country teaches us that constitutional protections are needed to protect the basic rights of the people. Our criminal justice system needs the kind of fundamental reform that can only be accomplished through changes in our fundamental law--the Constitution. Attorney General Reno has confirmed the point, noting that, ``unless the Constitution is amended to ensure basic rights to crime victims, as will never correct the existing imbalance in this country between defendants' constitutional rights and the haphazard patchwork of victims' rights.'' Attempts to establish rights by federal or state statute, or even state constitutional amendment, have proven inadequate, after more then twenty years of trying. On behalf of the Department of Justice, Ray Fisher, the Associate Attorney General, recently testified that ``the state legislative route to change has proven less than adequate in according victims their rights. Rather than form a minimum baseline of protections, the state provisions have produced a hodgepodge of rights that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution will receive greater recognition and respect, and will provide a national baseline.'' A number of legal commentators have reached similar conclusions. In the 1997 Harvard Law Bulletin, Professor Laurence Tribe has explained that the existing statutes and state amendments ``are likely, as experience to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional indifference, sheer inertia, or any mention of an accused's rights regardless of whether those rights are genuinely threatened.'' He has also stated, ``there appears to be a considerable bloody of evidence showing that, even where statutory or regulatory or judge-made rules exist to protect the participatory rights of victims, such rights often tend to be honored in the breach. . . .'' Additionally, in the Baylor Law Review, Texas Court of Appeals Justice Richard Barajas has explained that ``[i]t is apparent . . . that state constitutional amendments alone cannot adequately address the needs of crime victims.'' Federal statutes are also inadequate. Professor Cassell's detailed 1998 testimony about the Oklahoma City Bombing Case shows that, as he concluded, ``federal statutes are insufficient to protect the rights of crime victims.'' Mr. President, I was pleased that in July 1998 the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the amendment, S.J. Res. 44, by a bipartisan vote of 11 to 6. The amendment has strong bipartisan support. It was cosponsored by 30 Republicans and 12 Democrats, including leadership members such as Senators Lott, Thurmond, Mack, Coverdell, Craig, Breaux, Reid, Torricelli, and Ford (now retired). In the 106th Congress, Senator Feinstein and I will work hard to ensure the amendment's passage. We plan to hold a hearing early in the Congress, followed by a markup and consideration by the full Senate. We welcome comments and suggestions from Members and other interested parties. Again, I would like to thank Senator Dianne Feinstein for her hard work on this amendment and for her tireless efforts on behalf of crime victims. Mr. President, for far to long, the criminal justice system has ignored crime victims who deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. Our criminal justice system will never be truly just as long as criminals have rights and victims have none. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Brownback, Coverdell, Crapo, Frist, Gramm, Grams, Hagel, Helms, Hutchison, Inhofe, Mack, McConnell, Sessions, Shelby, Smith of New Hampshire, and Thompson, to introduce the Tax Limitation Amendment, a joint resolution that proposes to amend the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to raise taxes. Mr. President, this is an idea that comes to us from the states. Voters from around the country have approved similar restrictions in recent years--doing so in most cases by overwhelming margins. Most recently, a solid majority of Montana voters approved an amendment to their state's constitution that requires voter approval of all new taxes and tax increases. That is a far stronger constraint than what is being proposed here. By overwhelming majorities, voters in Arkansas, Maryland, and Virginia upheld their states tax-limitation initiatives, rejecting ballot propositions on November 3 last year that were designed to water down existing constraints on tax increases. Two years ago, also by overwhelming majorities, voters from Florida to California approved initiatives aimed at limiting government's ability to raise taxes. Florida's Question One, which requires a two- thirds vote of the people to enact or raise any state taxes or fees, passed with 69.2 percent of the vote. Seventy percent of Nevada voters approved the Gibbons amendment, requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the state legislature to pass new taxes or tax hikes. South Dakotans easily approved an amendment requiring either a vote of the people or a two-thirds vote of the legislature for any state tax increase. And California voters tightened the restrictions in the most famous tax limitation of all, Proposition 13, so that all taxes at the local level now have to be approved by a vote of the people. Of course, voters in my home state of Arizona overwhelmingly approved a state tax limit of their own in 1992. The Tax Limitation Amendment I am introducing today would impose similar constraints on federal tax-raising authority. It would require a two-thirds majority vote of each house of Congress to pass any bill levying a new tax or increasing the rate or base of any existing tax. In short, any measure that would take more out of the taxpayers' pockets would require a supermajority vote to pass. I would note that the proposed amendment includes provisions that would allow Congress to waive the supermajority vote requirement in times of war, or when the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to national security. But to ensure that such waiver authority is truly reserved for such emergencies and is not abused, any new taxes imposed under a waiver could only remain in effect for a maximum of two years. Mr. President, why is a tax-limitation amendment necessary? The two largest tax increases in our nation's history were enacted earlier this decade by only the slimmest of margins. In fact, President Clinton's 1993 tax increase did not even win the support of a majority of Senators. Vice President Gore broke a 50 to 50 vote tie to secure its passage. Despite very modest efforts to cut taxes in the last few years, the effects of the record-setting tax increases of 1990 and 1993 are still being felt today. The tax burden imposed on the American people hit a peacetime high of 19.8 percent of GDP in 1997 and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is continuing to rise--to 20.5 percent in 1998 and 20.6 in 1999. That will be higher than any year since 1945, and it would be only the third and fourth years in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded 20 percent of national income. Notably, the first two times revenues broke the 20 percent mark, the economy tipped into recession. Already, economists are beginning to project slower economic growth in coming years. Barring any further shocks from abroad, growth for 1999 to 2003 is estimated at about two percent. In fact, growth during the high-tax Clinton years has averaged only about 2.3 percent annually. That compares to the 3.9 percent annual growth rate during the period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase. The heavy tax burden may not be the only reason for slow growth, but it is a significant factor. With that in mind, I believe the President and Congress should consider reducing income-tax rates across the board for all Americans. We will no doubt have that debate about the need for tax relief in coming months. But whether we agree to cut taxes or not, we--the President and Congress--should be able to agree that taxes are high enough and should not be raised further, at least not without the kind of significant, broad-based and bipartisan support that would be required under the Tax Limitation Amendment. Raising sufficient revenue to pay for government's essential operation is obviously a necessary part of governing, but raising tax rates is not necessarily the best way to raise revenue. As recent experience proves, it is a strong and growing economy--not high tax rates--that generates substantial amounts of new revenue for the Treasury. It was the growing economy that helped eliminate last year's unified budget deficit. In any event, voters around the country seem to believe that raising taxes should only be done when there is broad support for the proposition. The TLA will ensure that no tax can be raised in the future without such consensus. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to cosponsor the initiative, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment--a joint resolution proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States to establish both a federal spending limit and a requirement that the federal government maintain a balanced budget. Mr. President, it seems to me that although we may have succeeded in balancing the unified budget, we still have two very different visions of where we should be headed. Is a balanced budget the paramount goal, even if it comes with substantially higher taxes and more spending? Or is the real goal of a balanced budget to be more responsible with people's hard-earned tax dollars--to limit government's size and give people more choices and more control over their lives? Before we try to answer those questions, let us try to give them some context. When we balanced the unified budget last year, we did so by taxing and spending at a level of about $1.72 trillion. That is a level of spending that is 25 percent higher than when President Clinton took office just six years ago. Our government now spends the equivalent of $6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the country every year. That is the equivalent of nearly $27,000 for the average family of four. But all of that spending comes at a tremendous cost to hard-working taxpayers. The Tax Foundation estimates that the median income family in America saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 37.6 percent of income in 1997--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. Put another way, in too many families, one parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy. Perhaps a different measure of how heavy a tax burden the federal government imposes would be helpful. Consider that federal revenues hit a peacetime high of 19.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1997 and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will continue to climb--to 20.5 percent in 1998 and 20.6 percent in 1999. That will be higher than any year since 1945, and it would be only the third and fourth years in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded 20 percent of national income. Notably, the first two times revenues broke the 20 percent mark, the economy tipped into recession. For me, it is not enough to balance the budget if it means that hard- working families continue to be overtaxed. It is not enough to balance the budget if government continues to grow, seemingly without limits, taking choice and freedom away from people in the process. And it is not enough to balance the budget by collecting so much in taxes that it leads the economy into recession. A balanced budget is not the only goal, or even the highest goal. A balanced budget should be the way we find what is the appropriate size and scope of government--the way to make Washington more respectful of hard-working taxpayers' earnings and their desire to do right by themselves and their families. That is where our paramount concern should be--with the taxpayers. Mr. President, last year was the first time in nearly 30 years that Washington managed to balance its books. In fact, we posted a record unified budget surplus of $70 billion, and we did so even though we have no constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. Some will use that fact to argue there is no need for a balanced budget amendment. I would suggest to them that they look back at what happened last October. Just three weeks--exactly 21 days--after confirming that the federal government had indeed achieved its first budget surplus in a generation, Congress passed, and the President signed, a bill that used fully a third of the surplus for increased spending on a variety of government programs other than Social Security, tax relief, or repayment of the national debt. Many people will recall that President Clinton pledged in his State of the Union address a year ago to ``save every penny of any surplus'' for Social Security, yet he was the first in line with a long list of programs to be funded out of the budget surplus. And fearful that if the President did not get his way he would veto the budget and tar Congress with the blame for another government shutdown, many Members of Congress went along and voted for this raid on the surplus. That was just the first in what is expected to be a series of efforts by President Clinton to spend down the surplus in coming months. Another $2.5 billion supplemental spending request is already in the works. Coupled with a peacetime tax burden that is at an all-time high and growing, this portends a dangerous return to the old ways of budget- busting, bigger government--that is, unless we agree to abide by the lasting discipline of a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. The Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment would impose discipline on Congress and the President in two ways. First, it would require that we maintain a balanced federal budget. Second, consistent with the vision of limited government, it would limit federal spending to 19 percent of the national income, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product. That is roughly the level of revenue collected by the government over the last 40 years. Interestingly, a December 1998 report by the Joint Economic Committee concludes that the optimal level of spending may actually be lower--17.5 percent of GDP. In other words, beyond a certain point--the Joint Committee suggests it is 17.5 percent of GDP--government's claim to private resources can actually hurt the economy. Consider, for example, that economic growth during the high-tax Clinton years has averaged only about 2.3 percent annually, whereas we averaged 3.9 percent annual growth during the period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase. Raising sufficient revenue to pay for government's essential operations is obviously a necessary part of governing, but raising tax rates is not necessarily the best way to raise revenue. As recent experience proves, it is a strong and growing economy--not high tax rates--that generates substantial amounts of new revenue for the Treasury. It was the growing economy that helped eliminate last year's unified budget deficit. The advantage of the Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment is that it keeps our eye on the ball. It tells Congress to limit spending. And by linking spending to economic growth, it gives Congress a positive incentive to enact pro-growth economic and tax policies. Only a healthy and growing economy--measured by GDP--would increase the dollar amount that Congress is allowed to spend, although always proportionate to the size of the economy. In other words, 19 percent of a larger GDP represents more revenue to the Treasury than 19 percent of a smaller GDP. I urge my colleagues to consider the need for a balanced budget amendment, and the advantages of the Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment in particular. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Senior Citizens Income Tax Relief Act. This legislation would give seniors relief from the Clinton Social Security tax increase of 1993. I introduced this bill on August 5, 1993, the day this tax was first imposed on America's senior citizens. Senator Pete Domenici, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, recently predicted that the federal government would generate a budget surplus of up to $700 billion over the next 10 years. He proposed that roughly $600 billion of this surplus be used to fund a tax cut. I could not agree more. I will be working with Senator Domenici and members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle to ensure that there will be sufficient room in this surplus for Social Security tax relief for senior citizens. Millions of America's senior citizens depend on Social Security as a critical part of their retirement income. Having paid into the program throughout their working lives, retirees count on the government to meet its obligations under the Social Security contract. For many, the security provided by this supplemental pension plan is the difference between a happy and healthy retirement and one marked by uncertainty and apprehension, particularly for the vast majority of seniors on fixed incomes. As part of his massive 1993 tax hike, President Clinton imposed a tax increase on senior citizens, subjecting to taxation up to 85 percent of the Social Security received by seniors with annual incomes of over $34,000 and couples with over $44,000 in annual income. This represents a 70 percent increase in the marginal tax rate for these seniors. Factor in the government's ``Social Security Earnings Limitation,'' and a senior's marginal tax rate can reach 88 percent-- twice the rate paid by millionaires. An analysis of government-provided figures on the 1993 Social Security tax increase finds that, at the end of 1998, America's seniors have paid an extra $25 billion because of this tax hike, including $380 million from senior citizens in Arizona alone. Mr. President, I want to make an additional important point. Despite all the partisan demagoguery, the only attack on Social Security in recent years has come from the administration and the other party in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Not one Republican supported this tax increase on Social Security benefits. If the administration opposes any meaningful tax cut, the relief we will be able to provide will be limited. It will be difficult, then, to repeal the Social Security tax increase. This is why, in the 105th Congress, I offered an amendment to ensure that we are able to expand tax relief in the future, and why the first tax relief proposal I am introducing in the 106th Congress will repeal President Clinton's 1993 Social Security tax increase.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I introduce a series of bills designed to help sustain the economic expansion and enhance the rate of economic growth in this country. The four measures, which together make up what I refer to as the Agenda for Economic Growth and Opportunity, will help encourage investment in small businesses, enhance the wages of American workers, and make our country more competitive in the global economy. Mr. President, it was just over 36 years ago that President John F. Kennedy made the following observation in his State of the Union message--an observation that someone could just as easily make about today's economy. He said, ``America has enjoyed 22 months of uninterrupted economic recovery.'' The current expansion, albeit weaker than most during this century, has gone on somewhat longer. ``But,'' President Kennedy went on to say, ``recovery is not enough. If we are to prevail in the long run, we must expand the long-run strength of our economy. We must move along the path to a higher rate of economic growth.'' Economic growth. The concept is studied endlessly by economists and statisticians, but what does it mean for the average American family, and why should policy-makers be so concerned about it? For most of the 20th century, our nation enjoyed very strong rates of economic growth and the dividends that came with it. The 1920s saw annual economic growth above five percent. In the 1950s, it was above six percent. Economic growth during the Kennedy and Johnson years averaged 4.8 percent annually. During the years after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase, the economy grew at an average rate of 3.9 percent a year, according to data supplied by the Joint Economic Committee. The Clinton years, by contrast, have actually seen the economy grow at a much slower rate--an average rate of only about 2.3 percent a year. And recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that the growth of real Gross Domestic Product is likely to slow to just over two percent for the last part of 1998 and the early part of 1999. What that means is that, while we may not exactly be hurting as a nation, we are not becoming much better off, either. We are certainly not leaving much of a legacy for our children and grandchildren to meet the needs of tomorrow. Slower growth means fewer job opportunities in the days ahead for young Americans just entering the workforce and for those people seeking to free themselves from the welfare rolls. It means stagnant wages and salaries, and fewer opportunities for career advancement for those who do have jobs. It means less investment in new plants and equipment, and new technology--things needed to enhance productivity and ensure that American businesses can remain competitive in the global marketplace. So what do we do to spur economic growth--to ensure that jobs will continue to be available for those who want them, that families can earn better wages, and that American business maintains a dominant role in the global economy? Those are, after all, the goals of the agenda I am laying out today--an agenda for economic growth and opportunity for all Americans, for those struggling to make ends meet today, and for our children when they enter the workforce tomorrow. Let me begin my answer with another quotation from John Kennedy: ``[I]t is increasingly clear--to those in Government, business, and labor who are responsible for our economy's success--that our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment. Designed to check inflation in earlier years, it now checks growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It distorts use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions, depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget deficits.'' Mr. President, although we managed to balance the unified budget last year, there is still much in what President Kennedy said that is relevant to our situation today. Consider, for example, that we balanced the budget by taxing and spending at a level of about $1.72 trillion--a level of spending that is 25 percent higher than when President Clinton took office just six years ago. Our government now spends the equivalent of $6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the country every year. That is the equivalent of nearly $27,000 for the average family of four. But all of that spending comes at a tremendous cost to hard-working taxpayers. As President Kennedy put it, it is a drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment. The Tax Foundation estimates that the median income family in America saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 37.6 percent of income in 1997--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. Put another way, in too many families, one parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy. Perhaps a different measure of how heavy a tax burden the federal government is imposing--how big is the drag on the economy--would be helpful here. Consider that federal revenues hit a peacetime high of 19.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1997 and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will continue to climb--to 20.5 percent in 1998 and 20.6 percent in 1999. That will be higher than any year since 1945, and it would be only the third and fourth years in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded 20 percent of national income. Notably, the first two times revenues broke the 20 percent mark, the economy tipped into recession. Mr. President, the agenda I am proposing attacks some of the most significant deficiencies in our nation's Tax Code that are inhibiting savings and investment, and job creation--deficiencies that keep us from reaching our potential as a nation. I do not make these proposals as a substitute for fundamental tax reform or an across-the-board reduction in income-tax rates, which I believe are the ultimate solutions to the problem. But fundamental tax reform is going to take some time to accomplish, maybe several years. And I am not convinced that President Clinton will ever agree to an across-the-board reduction in tax rates. Therefore, what we need now are interim steps--things we can do quickly--to make sure our movement into the 21st century is based on the bedrock of a strong and growing economy. These Tax Code changes will help strengthen the economy and, in turn, produce more revenue for the federal government to help keep the budget balanced. Recent experience proves that it is a strong and growing economy--not high tax rates--that generates substantial amounts of new revenue for the Treasury. It was the growing economy that helped eliminate last year's unified budget deficit. Mr. President, the first of the four tax-related bills I am introducing is based primarily upon President John Kennedy's own growth package from three decades ago. Like the Kennedy plan, the legislation would reduce the percentage of long-term capital gains included in individual income subject to tax to 30 percent. It would reduce the alternative tax on the capital gains of corporations to 22 percent. I would note that Democratic President John Kennedy's plan called for a deeper capital gains tax cut than the Republican-controlled Congress passed in 1997. There was a reason that John Kennedy called for a significant cut in the capital gains tax. ``The present tax treatment of capital gains and losses is both inequitable and a barrier to economic growth,'' the President said. ``The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital from static to more dynamic situations, the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth of the economy.'' So if we are concerned whether new jobs are being created, whether new technology is developed, whether workers have the tools they need to do a better, more efficient job, we should support measures that reduce the cost of capital to facilitate the achievement of all these things. Remember, for every employee, there is an employer who took risks, made investments, and created jobs. But that employer needed capital to start. Economist Allen Sinai estimates that a capital-gains tax reduction would help businesses create as many as 500,000 new jobs. A capital-gains tax reduction would provide critical help to the country's entrepreneurs, especially those striving to open their own small businesses or grow their businesses. Small business is, after all, that engine that drives the nation's economy. In Arizona, about half of those businesses are run by women. An estimated 130,000 women- owned businesses in the state employ more than 330,000 people. These are precisely the kind of firms that have difficulty securing the capital they need to expand. High capital-gains taxes are one reason why. Mr. President, it may come as a surprise to some people, but experience shows that lower capital-gains tax rates help not only small businesses and the economy, but federal revenues as well. The most impressive evidence, as noted in a recent report by the American Council for Capital Formation, can be found in the period from 1978 to 1985. During those years, the top marginal federal tax rate on capital gains was cut significantly--from 35 percent to 20 percent--but total individual capital gains tax receipts nearly tripled--from $9.1 billion to $26.5 billion annually. Data from the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that the maximizing capital gains tax rate--that is, the rate that would bring in the most Treasury revenue--is somewhere between nine and 21 percent. The Joint Economic Committee estimates that the optimal rate is probably 15 percent or less. The bill I am introducing today would set an effective top rate on capital gains earned by individuals, by virtue of the 70 percent exclusion, at 11.88 percent. Mr. President, when capital gains tax rates are too high, people need only hold onto their assets to avoid the tax indefinitely. No sale, no tax. But that means less investment, fewer new businesses and new jobs, and--as historical surveys show--far less revenue to the Treasury than if capital gains taxes were set at a lower level. Just as the local department store does not lose money on weekend sales--because volume more than makes up for lower prices--lower capital gains tax rates can encourage more economic activity and, in turn, produce more revenue for the government. Capital gains reform will help the Treasury. A capital gains tax reduction would help unlock a sizable share of the estimated $7 trillion of capital that is left virtually unused because of high tax rates. More importantly, it will help the family that has a small plot of land it would like to sell, or a small business that would like to expand, buy new equipment, and create new jobs. Moreover, evidence shows that most of the tax savings will go to Americans of modest means. According to Internal Revenue Service data, almost 53 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains had adjusted gross incomes of less than $50,000. Another 28 percent have AGIs between $50,000 and $100,000. Nearly two years ago, this Congress reduced capital gains taxes, but it did so in a way that added substantially to the complexity of the Tax Code. And, in my view, it did not cut the tax rate enough. John Kennedy's idea--that is, simply providing a 70 percent exclusion--was a superior approach, and that is what I am proposing today. Mr. President, the second part of this bill proposes a similar exclusion for dividend income. The rationale is twofold: first, to further encourage saving and investment; and second, to eliminate any bias in the Tax Code that might favor investments whose returns are paid primarily in capital gains over those that pay dividends. With recent reductions in the capital-gains tax, there may now be more incentive to invest in instruments that produce earnings taxed at the low capital-gains rate, as opposed to investing for dividends which are taxed at the regular, higher income-tax rate. My bill proposes to put dividend income on par with capital gains for purposes of levying an income tax. The exclusion for dividend income would also go a long way toward eliminating the double taxation of such income, which is currently taxed once at the corporate level and then again when it is provided to investors in the form of dividends. A report by the American Council for Capital Formation notes that dividend income is taxed more heavily in the United States than in most other industrialized countries. The Council indicates that dividend income is subject to a U.S. tax rate of 60.4 percent, compared to an average of 51.1 percent abroad. This high rate is due to the double taxation of dividend income. Mr. President, the second in this series of bills is the Corporate Tax Equity Act, a bill designed to help U.S. businesses make larger capital expenditures and thereby enhance productivity and job creation by repealing the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Mr. President, the original intent of the AMT was to make it harder for large, profitable corporations to avoid paying any federal income tax. But the way to have accomplished that objective was not, in my view, to impose an AMT, but to identify and correct the provisions of law that allowed large companies to inappropriately lower their federal tax liabilities to begin with. Ironically, the primary shelters corporations were using to minimize their tax liability--that is, the accelerated depreciation and safe harbor leasing of the old Tax Code-- were being corrected at the time the AMT was enacted. I would point out that the AMT is not a tax, per se. As indicated in an April 3, 1996 report by the Congressional Research Service, the AMT is merely intended to serve as a prepayment of the regular corporate income tax, not a permanent increase in overall corporate tax liability. What that means in practical terms is that businesses are forced to make interest-free loans to the federal government under the guise of the AMT. Corporations pay a tax for which they are not liable, but which they are able to apply toward their future regular tax liability. I would also point out that most of the corporations paying the AMT are relatively small. The General Accounting Office, in a 1995 report on the issue, found that, in most years between 1987 and 1992, more than 70 percent of corporations paying the AMT had less than $10 million in assets. The AMT requires corporations to calculate their tax liability under two separate but parallel income-tax systems. Firms must calculate their AMT liability even if they end up paying the regular tax. At a minimum, that means that firms must maintain two sets of records for tax purposes. The compliance costs are substantial. In 1992, for example, while only about 28,000 corporations paid the AMT, more than 400,000 corporations filed the AMT form, and an even greater--but unknown-- number of firms performed the calculations needed to determine their AMT liability. A 1993 analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation found that the AMT added 16.9 percent to a corporation's total cost of complying with federal income tax laws. Mr. President, repealing the corporate AMT would help free up badly needed capital to assist in business expansion and job creation. According to a study by DRI/McGraw-Hill, AMT repeal would have increased fixed investment by a total of 7.9 percent, raised Gross Domestic Product by 1.6 percent, and increased labor productivity by 1.6 percent between 1996 and 2005. The study also projected that repeal would produce an additional 100,000 jobs a year during the years 1998 to 2002. Mr. President, the third bill in this package is the Small Business Investment and Growth Act, which would ensure that small businesses do not pay a higher income-tax rate than large corporations. Congressman Phil Crane of Illinois has been promoting similar legislation in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, the 1990 and 1993 increases in marginal income-tax rates put a tremendous strain on the nearly two million small businesses around the country that are organized as S corporations. Since these small businesses pay taxes at the individual income-tax rate, they can be subject to rates as high as 39.6 percent--higher than any other corporate entity. By contrast, the top rate imposed on large corporations is only 34 percent. What sense is there in imposing tax rates on small businesses that are higher than those levied on better financed corporations? Estimates indicate that successful American businesses have been able to create three to four new jobs for every additional $100,000 they retain in the business. So higher taxes are counterproductive. They deny small businesses the funds they need to invest in new jobs, new equipment, and new facilities. That hurts small companies. And it hurts the economy. The bill I am introducing today would establish a top rate of 34 percent when a small business reinvests its earnings in its operation, or when the earnings are distributed to the shareholders for the purposes of making tax payments. This lower tax rate would be applicable only to the first $5 million in taxable income of the small business. The bill is a similar, but expanded, version of legislation that I introduced during the 105th Congress. Although the latest version would provide relief to more S corporations, I want to make it clear that I would prefer to provide tax relief to all businesses. And since taxes paid by businesses are merely passed along in the form of higher prices, we are really talking about providing relief to all consumers. The Small Business Investment and Growth Act represents an important first step toward reducing excessive taxes on small business and encouraging S corporation owners and managers to reinvest income into their businesses, thereby creating more jobs and fueling economic growth. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure and reducing the tax burden imposed on America's small businesses. Mr. President, the fourth in the series of economic growth incentives is a bill to repeal the federal estate, or death, tax. Mr. President, it was Ben Franklin who said some 200 years ago that nothing in this world is certain except death and taxes. Leave it to the federal government to find a way to put those two inevitabilities together to create a death tax that is not only confiscatory, but offensive to Americans' sense of fairness, harmful to the environment, and injurious to small business and the economy. Although most Americans will probably never pay a death tax, most people still sense that there is something terribly wrong with a system that allows Washington to seize more than half of whatever is left after someone dies--a system that prevents hard-working Americans from passing the bulk of their nest eggs to their children or grandchildren. The respected liberal Professor of Law at the University of Southern California, Edward J. McCaffrey, put it this way: ``Polls and practices show that we like sin taxes, such as on alcohol and cigarettes.'' ``The estate tax,'' he went on to say, ``is an anti-sin, or a virtue tax. It is a tax on work and savings without consumption, on thrift, on long term savings. There is no reason even a liberal populace need support it.'' Democrat economists Henry Aaron and Alicia Munnell reached similar conclusions, writing in a 1992 study that death taxes ``have failed to achieve their intended purposes. They raise little revenue. They impose large excess burdens. They are unfair.'' In fact, 77 percent of the people responding to a survey by the Polling Company last year indicated that they favor repeal of the death tax. When Californians had the chance to weigh in with a ballot proposition, they voted two-to-one to repeal their state's death tax. The legislatures of five other states have enacted legislation since 1997 that will either eliminate or significantly reduce the burden of their states' death taxes. Talk to the men and women who run small businesses around the country and you will find that death taxes are a major concern to them. The 1995 White House Conference on Small Business identified the death tax as one of small business's top concerns, and delegates to the conference voted overwhelming to endorse its repeal. Remember, this is a tax that is imposed on a family business at the moment when it is least able to afford the payment--upon the death of the person with the greatest practical and institutional knowledge of that business's operations. It should come as no surprise, then, that a 1993 study by Prince and Associates--a Stratford, Connecticut research and consulting firm--found that nine out of 10 family businesses that failed within three years of the principal owner's death attributed their companies' demise to trouble paying the death tax. Six out of 10 family-owned businesses fail to make it to the second generation. The death tax is a major reason why. Think of what that means to women and minority-owned businesses in particular. Instead of passing a hard-earned and successful business on to the next generation, many families have to sell the company in order to pay the death tax. The upward mobility of such families is stopped in its tracks. The proponents of this tax always speak of the need to hinder ``concentrations of wealth.'' What the tax really hinders is new American success stories. Even if a family does not have to sell its business to pay the death tax, there are still significant costs that are imposed either directly or indirectly. Some people simply take preemptive action--they slow the growth of their businesses to limit their death-tax burden. Of course, that means less investment in our communities and fewer jobs created. Others divert money they would have spent on new equipment or new hires to insurance policies designed to cover death-tax costs. Still others spend millions on lawyers, accountants, and other advisors for death- tax planning purposes. But that leaves fewer resources to invest in the company, start up new businesses, hire additional people, or pay better wages. What that suggests to me is that, although the death tax raises only about one percent of the federal government's annual revenue, it exerts a disproportionately large and negative impact on the economy. Alicia Munnell, who belonged to President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, estimates that the costs of complying with death-tax laws are of roughly the same magnitude as the revenue raised, or about $23 billion in 1998. In other words, for every dollar of tax revenue raised by the death tax, another dollar is squandered in the economy simply to comply with or avoid the tax. Over time, the adverse consequences are compounded. A report issued by the Joint Economic Committee just last month concluded that the existence of the death tax this century has reduced the stock of capital in the economy by nearly half a trillion dollars. By repealing it and putting those resources to better use, the Joint Committee estimates that as many as 240,000 jobs could be created over seven years and Americans would have an additional $24.4 billion in disposable personal income. Is it not better to encourage the creation of new jobs for tax-paying Americans than to impose a tax that puts people out of work or lowers their income? I think so, and that is why I favor repeal of the death tax. Mr. President, I suggested a moment ago that the death tax had a harmful effect, not only on the economy, but on the environment, as well. That is something that we need to consider here. An increasing number of families that own environmentally sensitive lands are having to sell the property for development in order to pay the death tax. Natural habitats are being destroyed as a result. With that in mind, Michael Bean of The Nature Conservancy observed that the death tax is ``highly regressive in the sense that it encourages the destruction of ecologically important land.'' It represents a real and present threat to endangered and threatened species and their habitats. Mr. President, let me conclude by citing the report issued a few years ago by the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform, because it goes back to the point about fairness in a very poignant way. The Commission concluded that ``[i]t makes little sense and is patently unfair to impose extra taxes on people who choose to pass their assets on to their children and grandchildren instead of spending them lavishly on themselves.'' I agree. The Commission went on to endorse repeal of the death tax. Mr. President, the Agenda for Economic Growth and Opportunity will help keep the economy on track--it will help forestall the recession that some economists predict is on the way. It will help improve the standard of living for all Americans. I invite my colleagues' support for this very important initiative.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Voter Turnout Enhancement Study (VoTES) Commission Act, a bill designed to promote fiscal responsibility while helping to motivate more Americans to get to the polls on Election Day. Mr. President, when we balanced the unified budget last year, we did so by taxing and spending at a level of about $1.72 trillion. That is a level of spending that is 25 percent higher than when President Clinton took office just six years ago. Our government now spends the equivalent of $6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the country every year. That is the equivalent of nearly $27,000 for the average family of four. But all of that spending comes at a tremendous cost to hard-working taxpayers. The Tax Foundation estimates that the medium income family in America saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 37.6 percent of income in 1997--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. Put another way, in too many families, one parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy. In fact, the tax burden imposed on the American people hit a peacetime high of 19.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1997 and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is continuing to rise--to 20.5 percent in 1998 and 20.6 percent in 1999. That will be higher than any year since 1945, and it would be only the third and fourth years in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded 20 percent of national income. Notably, the first tow times revenues broke the 20 percent mark the economy tipped into recession. Already, economists are beginning to project slower economic growth in coming years. Barring any further shocks from abroad, growth for 1999 to 2003 is estimated at about two percent. The heavy tax burden may not be the only reasons for slow growth, but it is a significant factor. Consider that economic growth avenged 3.9 percent annually during the period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase. I am convinced that the tax burden is growing, in part, because so much of it is obscured from the view of the taxpayers. Withholding, for example, reduces the visibility and minimizes the pain of making large tax payments. FICA taxes paid by an employer on behalf of an employee never show up on a worker's pay stub at all, even though they reduce wages dollar for dollar. By the time Election Day could hardly be farther away from April 15. If the visibility of the tax burden were increased, people might be more inclined to get to the polls. Move the deadline for filing income- tax returns from April to November and we could give people a reason to vote by focusing their attention on the role of government--and how much it actually costs them--on the single most important day of the year. Moving Tax Day to Election Day would probably result in more change in Washington than anything else we could do. Moreover, maximizing voter turnout is the best way to ensure that government officials heed the will of the people and make sound public policy. The bill I am introducing today would provide for a thoughtful and thorough analysis of a change in the tax-filing deadline from April to November, it potential effect on voter turnout, as well as any economic impact it might have. The bill explicitly requires that an independent commission conduct a cost-benefit analysis--a requirement that Congress would be wise to impose routinely on legislative initiatives to separate the good ideas from the bad, and save taxpayers a lot of money in the process. A number other cost limiting provisions have been included to protect taxpayers' interests. While just about every day of the year is celebrated by special interest groups around the country for the government largesee they receive, the taxpayers--the silent majority--have only one day of the year to focus on what that largesse means to them--how much it costs them--and that is Tax Day. I believe that it ought to coincide with Election Day so people can clearly choose between candidates who support higher taxes and more government control, and candidates who favor lower taxes and the right of people to decide for themselves how to spend their own money. I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this initiative, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Voter Turnout Enhancement Study (VoTES) Commission Act, a bill designed to promote fiscal responsibility while helping to motivate more Americans to get to the polls on Election Day. Mr. President, when we balanced the unified budget last year, we did so by taxing and spending at a level of about $1.72 trillion. That is a level of spending that is 25 percent higher than when President Clinton took office just six years ago. Our government now spends the equivalent of $6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the country every year. That is the equivalent of nearly $27,000 for the average family of four. But all of that spending comes at a tremendous cost to hard-working taxpayers. The Tax Foundation estimates that the medium income family in America saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 37.6 percent of income in 1997--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. Put another way, in too many families, one parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy. In fact, the tax burden imposed on the American people hit a peacetime high of 19.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1997 and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is continuing to rise--to 20.5 percent in 1998 and 20.6 percent in 1999. That will be higher than any year since 1945, and it would be only the third and fourth years in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded 20 percent of national income. Notably, the first tow times revenues broke the 20 percent mark the economy tipped into recession. Already, economists are beginning to project slower economic growth in coming years. Barring any further shocks from abroad, growth for 1999 to 2003 is estimated at about two percent. The heavy tax burden may not be the only reasons for slow growth, but it is a significant factor. Consider that economic growth avenged 3.9 percent annually during the period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase. I am convinced that the tax burden is growing, in part, because so much of it is obscured from the view of the taxpayers. Withholding, for example, reduces the visibility and minimizes the pain of making large tax payments. FICA taxes paid by an employer on behalf of an employee never show up on a worker's pay stub at all, even though they reduce wages dollar for dollar. By the time Election Day could hardly be farther away from April 15. If the visibility of the tax burden were increased, people might be more inclined to get to the polls. Move the deadline for filing income- tax returns from April to November and we could give people a reason to vote by focusing their attention on the role of government--and how much it actually costs them--on the single most important day of the year. Moving Tax Day to Election Day would probably result in more change in Washington than anything else we could do. Moreover, maximizing voter turnout is the best way to ensure that government officials heed the will of the people and make sound public policy. The bill I am introducing today would provide for a thoughtful and thorough analysis of a change in the tax-filing deadline from April to November, it potential effect on voter turnout, as well as any economic impact it might have. The bill explicitly requires that an independent commission conduct a cost-benefit analysis--a requirement that Congress would be wise to impose routinely on legislative initiatives to separate the good ideas from the bad, and save taxpayers a lot of money in the process. A number other cost limiting provisions have been included to protect taxpayers' interests. While just about every day of the year is celebrated by special interest groups around the country for the government largesee they receive, the taxpayers--the silent majority--have only one day of the year to focus on what that largesse means to them--how much it costs them--and that is Tax Day. I believe that it ought to coincide with Election Day so people can clearly choose between candidates who support higher taxes and more government control, and candidates who favor lower taxes and the right of people to decide for themselves how to spend their own money. I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this initiative, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for the better part of the last year, we have been considering what to do with projected budget surpluses should they ever materialize. Some people suggested setting aside the excess money to help save Social Security. Some wanted to use a portion for tax relief, or paying down the national debt. I believe there was merit in each of those ideas. It did not take long, however, for all of the good ideas to be swept aside once the surplus actually materialized. Just three weeks after confirming that the federal government achieved its first budget surplus in a generation, we have a bill before the Senate that proposes to use a third of the surplus to increase spending on government programs other than Social Security, tax relief, or repayment of the national debt. I am very disappointed that we find ourselves in this situation. President Clinton pledged in his State of the Union address to ``save every penny of any surplus'' for Social Security, yet he was the first in line with a long list of programs to be funded out of the budget surplus. And Congress appears willing to go along. I, for one, intend to vote against this raid on a surplus that should be saved for Social Security or tax relief. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office tells my office that it has not yet determined the cost of the omnibus spending bill, and may not be able to do so for some time. However, if you total the figures included in the conference report, it appears that the cost will approach $520 billion--that is, if funding for the International Monetary Fund and emergency agriculture money is included. I am looking at Division A of the bill--for mandatory and discretionary programs. That compares to $447 billion for the same programs only a year ago. In other words, we are being asked to approve a bill that proposes to increase spending 16 percent in a single year. That does not even take into account the extra spending--another $21 billion--that is to be financed out of the budget surplus. That is just too much. To put things into perspective, the average increase provided by the FY99 spending bills I supported earlier in the year amounted to just 0.1 percent--a spending freeze, in effect. If we are to keep the budget balanced and preserve our options on how to use the budget surplus, we need to follow a more responsible path. This bill, with its raid on the budget surplus, represents a dangerous return to the old ways of budget-busting, bigger government. Mr. President, let me say a few things about the process that spawned this bill. Eight of the regular appropriations bills are wrapped into this package. A so-called emergency spending bill is attached, bringing the total cost of the legislation to over a half-trillion dollars. It is massive. It is no way to do the people's business responsibly. I recognize that our leadership had little choice but to make the best of a bad situation, given President Clinton's propensity to shut the government down if he does not get his way. Indeed, one of the President's representatives admitted as much to the Majority Leader a few weeks ago when he said the White House would shut down the government if it was in its political interest to do so. That is reprehensible. Still, our leadership did manage to secure some very good things in this bill--things that I would support if they could be separated out and considered on their own merits. Important funding for our nation's defense, anti-drug efforts, and increased law enforcement in Indian country is included. There are resources for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, provisions to alleviate problems in the implementation of new border-security systems, funding for the National Institutes of Health, and programs to help victims of domestic violence. However, by failing to prioritize spending, the bill simply throws more money at bad programs as well as good ones. It is easy to please everyone by spending more and more money. Yet that is a sure prescription for a return to the customary budget deficits we worked so hard to eliminate. The fact is, this bill was written by a handful of congressional Members and staff and the White House behind closed doors. Most Members of Congress have not had a chance to review it, debate it, or offer amendments. That means our constituents have been shut out of the process. This is a risky and dangerous precedent that I believe we will come to regret. Mr. President, while there are a number of good items in this bill-- items I support--on balance, I believe it blurs the difference between two competing philosophies of government and, as I said before, represents a dangerous return to the old ways of budget-busting, bigger Government, and less freedom. I will vote no.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, while many parts of this bill concern me, the part that I am very proud of is a provision known as the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998. It has been my pleasure to have worked with Senator Coverdell and I commend him for guiding the drug-free workplace bill through the Small Business Committee with a unanimous bipartisan vote. I would also like to thank Representatives Portman, Bishop, and Souder for their work in passing this important anti-drug legislation out of the House. The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998 is an excellent example of how the federal government can work to encourage drug-free workplaces without placing heavy-handed mandates on businesses. It fosters partnerships between small businesses and organizations which have at least two years experience in carrying out drug-free workplace programs. It also will educate and encourage small businesses about the advantages of implementing drug-free workplace programs. Small businesses often feel they lack the money or the expertise to implement drug testing programs. That is why the drug-free workplace bill performs such a worthwhile function. Many small firms would like to start drug testing programs but don't have the ability to overcome the start up costs. This anti-drug measure provides resources to assist and educate employers who want the help in implementing drug-free workplace programs. As we all know, the American workforce is the main catalyst behind the tremendous economy that we are enjoying today. It is absolutely integral to a country's economic well being that it have a competent, able workforce. Our ability to maintain the high achievements of this workforce hinges largely on our ability to keep drugs out of the workplace. Drug use can take a tremendous toll. For example, 70% of drug users are employed. Employees who use drugs: Have greater absenteeism; have increased use of health services and insurance benefits; have increased risk of accidents; and have decreased productivity. The costs of drug use are not only confined to the user, just consider these disturbing statistics: Nearly half of all industrial accidents in the United States are related to drugs or alcohol; and drug and alcohol abusers file five times as many workman's compensation claims as non-abusers, and require 300 percent greater medical benefits. Businesses need help dealing with the problem of drug use--especially small businesses. Thomas Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified before the House Subcommittee on Empowerment that a large impediment in the implementation of drug programs is the perceived costs and problems with the actual initiation of the programs. The Drug-Free Workplace Act is fair to everyone. It's fair for the workers who are put at risk by their colleagues' drug abuse. It's fair to businesses, because it gives them the tools they need, but only if they want them. it's also fair to society, which ultimately foots the costly bill that drug abuse brings.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am concerned over our inability to advance good policy on encryption this Congress. The Senate has held many hearings on encryption, and there have been a number of bills introduced, with nothing concrete to show for it. What these bills have in common is an approach that would fold all aspects of national policy on encryption into one legislative vehicle. That has been a recipe for gridlock. Meanwhile, terrorist and criminals and drug lords are increasingly using encryption to hide their acts from law enforcement investigators. This already serious problem will continue to worsen unless we find some way to level the playing field. In committee, I offered an amendment I believed to be noncontroversial. It would criminalize the use of encryption in furtherance of a crime. It echoes language that appeared in each and every encryption bill introduced this Congress. And yet, it was rejected by some Members because it did not address other aspects of encryption policy. We need to get beyond this all-or-nothing approach.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as you know, over the past year there has been a great deal of discussion in Washington about the growing ballistic missile threat to the United States and our forces and friends abroad. Although Members of Congress and the Administration have not always agreed on how to best respond to this growing threat, I think we can all agree that the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, chaired by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has made an indispensable contribution to the debate. The bipartisan, nine-member commission included many of our nation's most prominent experts on national security affairs. Due to Don Rumsfeld's leadership, this diverse group with divergent views on many policy issues, came together and produced an outstanding report that unanimously concluded that the ballistic missile threat to the U.S. is greater than previously assessed, that rogue nations like Iran could develop long-range missiles capable of reaching the U.S. in as little as five years, and that we might have little or no warning that such a threat had developed. At an event last week, the Center for Security Policy honored Don Rumsfeld by presenting him with the ``Keeper of the Flame'' award for his outstanding leadership as chairman of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. It was a well deserved honor. For the benefit of those who were not able to attend the award ceremony, I ask that Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks at the event be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Remarks of the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, Center for Security Policy, October 7, 1998 Chairman Ed Meese, distinguished Members of the House and Senate, public officials--past and present--ladies and gentlemen. Good evening. I see so many here who have served our country with distinction in so many important ways--Senators Cochran, Kyl and Wallop, Secretaries Jim Schlesinger and Al Haig, and many others. And there is Dr. Fritz Kraemer. There is a true ``keeper of the flame.'' It is a privilege as well as a pleasure to be with you all. Frank--my congratulations to you for your ten years of contributions to our country's security. You and your associates at the Center deserve, and have, our appreciation. We all know and respect the energy, persistence and patriotism that you have brought to the national security debate and are grateful for it. Senator Thad Cochran, I thank you for your generous words. As you know, your Committee's very useful ``Proliferation Primer'' was given to each of our Commission members at our first session. You have made important contributions on these key subjects, and I congratulate you for them. * * * * * I find since I first arrived in Washington, D.C., to work on Capitol Hill back in 1957, fresh out of the Navy, that while we went back home at regular intervals, I seem to keep finding myself back here on some project or another for over several decades now. I must say that this most recent assignment, the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, has been particularly interesting, because the subject is so important. This evening I want to talk a bit about our report, first because it is a message that needs to be heard, and, second, because there's no group who has done more and can do still more to carry that message. As you will recall, the U.S. Intelligence Community's 1995 National Intelligence Estimate caused quite a stir in the national security community for a number of reasons. As a result, the Congress established our Commission to provide an independent assessment of the ballistic missile threat to the United States--including Alaska and Hawaii. Our charter was not to look at other threats or possible responses. As one of our Commissioners put it, our task was to find out, Who has them? Who is trying to get them? When are they likely to succeed? Why do we care? and, When will we know? Thanks to Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt for the House, and Senate Leaders Lott and Daschle, the members of our bipartisan Commission were truly outstanding. They included: Dr. Barry Blechman, the former Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Carter Administration; Retired four-star general Lee Butler, former Commander of the Strategic Air Command/ Dr. Richard Garwin of IBM, a distinguished scientist; General Larry Welch, former Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and CEO of the IDA; Paul Wolfowitz, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, former Ambassador to Indonesia, and Dean of the Nitze School at Johns Hopkins University; and James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA in the Clinton Administration. Also with us this evening is Dr. Steve Cambone, currently the Director of Research at the National Defense University. Steve did a superb job as Staff Director for the Commission. Two of our Commissioners are here this evening, and I'd like them to stand and be recognized for their important work. Dr. William Graham, former Science Advisor to President Reagan. Bill Graham has done a superb job. Thank goodness we had the benefit of his technical experienced and knowledge. Dr. William Schneider, former Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance in the Reagan Administration. Bill kept us sane with his unfailing good humor, penetrating as it is, and challenged by his keen insights. The members of the Commission spent an enormous number of hours, over six months and received over 200 briefings. Not surprisingly, given our different backgrounds and experiences--military, technical, policy oriented, but all with decades of experience dealing with the Intelligence Community and its products--we started out with a variety of viewpoints. As we proceeded, each time we seemed to be diverging in our views, we called for more briefings and focused back on the facts. After extensive discussion and analysis, we arrived at our unanimous conclusions and a unanimous recommendation. As General Welch said, the facts overcame our biases and opinions and drove us to our unanimous conclusions. And in this city, unanimity is remarkable, especially on a subject as heated as this. Given that so few people will be able to read our classified final report of some 307 pages, with several hundred additional classified pages of working papers and technical analysis, and that the unclassified executive summary was only 36 pages, that our conclusions were unanimous makes them considerably more persuasive. During the course of our deliberations, almost every week there was an event somewhere in the world related to ballistic missiles or weapons of mass destruction--whether the Ghauri missile launch by Pakistan, the Indian and Pakistani nuclear explosions, continued stiff-arming of the U.S. and the U.N. inspectors by Iraq, the Shahab 3 missile firing in Iran, and more recently North Korea's Taepo Dong 1 three-stage launch. The pace of these significant events, while disturbing to be sure, provided a vivid backdrop for our work. * * * * * It is clear the Gulf War taught regional powers that they are ill-advised to try to combat U.S. or Western armies and air forces. They can neither deter nor prevail against those vastly greater conventional capabilities. That being the case, it's not surprising that they week asymmetrical advantages and leverage to enable them to change the calculations of Western nations and ways to threaten and deter them as well as their neighbors. They have several cost effective options. Terrorism is one. Cruise missiles are also an increasingly attractive option in that they are both versatile and relatively inexpensive. At some point they may well become a weapon of choice. And, third, there are ballistic missiles. It is not happenstance that some 25-30 countries either have or are seeking to acquire ballistic missiles. They are very attractive, and relatively inexpensive when compared to armies, navies, and air forces; second, like cruise missiles, they can be launched from land, sea or air and have the flexibility of carrying chemical, biological or nuclear warheads; and third, they have the compelling advantage of being certain to arrive at their destinations--since there are no defenses against them. Those of us from Chicago recall Al Capone's remark that ``You get more with a kind word and a gun than you do with a kind word alone.'' We can substitute ``ballistic missile'' for ``gun'' and the names of some modern day Al Capones. The term ``rogue countries'' is an unfortunate phrase, since it suggests that their behavior might be erratic. While unusual to us, their actions are rational for them and not unpredictable. To say that such countries would be deterred or dissuaded from using terrorist attacks, cruise missiles or ballistic missiles with weapons of mass destruction, because of the vastly greater power of the U.S. and the West, is to misunderstand. As Lenin said, ``the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.'' these are terror weapons, and they work. Having these capabilities in the hands of such countries forces a different calculation on the part of the U.S. and any nation that has interests in their regions. * * * * * The Commission's unanimous conclusions were these: China and Russia continue to pose threats to the U.S., although different in nature. Each is on an uncertain, albeit different, path. With respect to North Korea and Iran, we concluded each could pose a threat to the U.S. within five years of a decision to do so, and that the U.S. might not know for several years whether or not such a decision had been made. Given that UNSCOM sanctions and inspections are unlikely to be in place it is increasingly clear that Iraq has to be included with North Korea and Iran. We concluded unanimously that these emerging capabilities are broader, more mature, and evolving more rapidly than had been reported, and that the intelligence community's ability to provide timely warning has been and is being eroded and that the warning time of deployment of a ballistic missile threat to the United States is reduced. Finally, we concluded that under some plausible scenarios, including re-basing or transfer of operational missiles, sea- and air-launch options, shortened development programs that might include testing in a third country, or some combination of these, the U.S. might well have little or no warning before operational deployment. * * * * * One important reason is that the emerging powers are secretive about their programs and increasingly sophisticated in deception and denial. They know considerably more than we would like them to know about the sources and methods of our collection, in no small part through espionage. And they use that knowledge to good effect in hiding their programs. We concluded that there will be surprises. It is a big world, it is a complicated world, and deception and denial are extensive. The surprise to me is not that there have been and will continue to be surprises, but that we are surprised that there are surprises. We don't, won't, and can't know everything. We must recognize that some surprises will occur and take the necessary steps to see that we invest so that our country is arranged to deal with the risks that the inevitable surprises will pose. As von Clausewitz wrote, ``The unexpected is the prince of the battlefield.'' * * * * * The second key factor relative to reduced warning is the extensive and growing foreign assistance, technology transfer and foreign trade in ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Foreign trade and foreign assistance are, in our view, not a ``wild card.'' They are a fact. The contention that we will have ample warning of developments in nations with ``indigenous'' ballistic missile development programs misses the point. I don't know of a single nation on earth with an ``indigenous'' ballistic missile program. There may not have been a truly indigenous ballistic missile development program since Robert Goddard. The countries of interest are helping each other. They are doing it for a variety of reasons--some strategic, some financial. But, be clear--technology transfer is not rare or unusual, it is pervasive. The intelligence task is difficult. There are more actors, more programs and more facilities to monitor than was the case during the Cold War. Their assets are spread somewhat thinly across many priorities. Methodological adjustments relative to collecting and analyzing evidence is, in our view, not keeping up with the pace of events. We need to remember Baldy's Law: ``Some of it (what we see), plus the rest of it (what we don't see) equals all of it.'' Or, as Dr. Bill Graham frequently reminded us, ``The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'' Specifically, Russia and China have emerged as major suppliers of technology to a number of countries. There is the advent and acceleration of trade among second-tier powers to the point that the development of these capabilities may well have become self-sustaining. Today they each have various capabilities the others do not. As they trade-- whether it's knowledge, systems, materials, components, or technicians--they benefit from each other and are able to move forward on separate development paths, all of which are notably different from ours or that of the Soviet Union. And, they are able to move at a more rapid pace. To characterize the programs of target nations as ``high- risk'' is a misunderstanding of the situation. These countries do not need the accuracies the U.S. required. They do not have the same concerns about safety that the U.S. has. Nor do they need the high volumes the U.S. acquired. As a result, they are capable of using technologies, techniques and even equipment that the U.S. would have rejected as too primitive as much as three decades ago. But let there be no doubt--they are successfully and rapidly developing the capabilities necessary to threaten the United States. As I mentioned, we considered a series of ways nations can shorten the missile development process and, therefore, warning time. They include launching shorter-range missiles by air or sea, by placing them in another country, by missile testing in another country, by the turn-key sale of entire ballistic missile systems to other countries, or some combination. These approaches have been characterized as ``unlikely.'' But each has been done. They are not new, novel, high-risk or unlikely. As Jim Woolsey pointed out, making ICBMs was like the old 4-minute mile barrier. It seemed impossible until Roger Bannister broke it. Today it's relatively easy. * * * * * On the subject of sanctions, you will recall that President Clinton recently said that sanctions legislation causes them to ``fudge.'' It was an honest statement. However, ``fudging'' can have a dangerous effect. There are several ways to ``fudge'': First, simply don't study or analyze a matter if the answer might put your superiors in an uncomfortable position; delay studying or reporting up information that would be ``bad news''; narrowly construe an issue, so that the answer will not be adverse to your boss's views or positions; and last, select assumptions that assume that the answer will lead to your desired conclusions. For example, you could study carefully whether or not the U.S. will have adequate warning of ``indigenous'' ballistic missile development programs, even though ``indigenous'' ballistic missile development programs don't exist. In short, the effect of ``fudging'' is to warp and corrupt the intelligence process. It is corrosive. Leaders have to create an environment that is hospitable to the truth-- whether it is bad news or good news--not an environment that forces subordinates to trim, hedge, duck and, as the President said, ``fudge.'' * * * * * The recent TD-1 space launch vehicle test is an object lesson and also a warning. Many were skeptical for technical reasons that the TD-1 could fly at all. It had been the conventional wisdom that ``staging'' and systems integration were too complex and difficult for countries such as North Korea to accomplish in any near time frame. Yet North Korea demonstrated staging twice. The likelihood that a TD-2 will be successfully tested has gone up considerably since the August 31st flight. The likelihood that a TD-2 flight could exceed 5,000 to 6,000 kilometers in range with a nuclear payload has gone up as well. And, the likelihood that we will not know very much in advance of a launch what a TD-2 will be capable of continues to be high. Now, the TD-1 launch was interesting with respect to North Korea, but given the reality of technology transfer, what happens in North Korea also is important with respect to other countries, for example, Iran. We can be certain that North Korea will offer that capability to other countries, including Iran. That has been their public posture. It has been their private behavior. They are very, very active marketing ballistic missile technologies. In addition, Iran not only has assistance from North Korea, but it also has assistance from Russia and China, which creates additional options and development paths for them. * * * * * What does this all mean by way of warning? Well, it powerfully reinforces our Commission's conclusions that technology transfer is pervasive and that deception and denial work. I've mentioned ``surprises,'' which of course go to the issue of warning. When do we know something? Put another way--when is what we do know sufficiently clear that it becomes actionable? Roberta Wohlstetter's brilliant book Pearl Harbor, and the foreword to it, compellingly argue that: ``. . . we were not caught napping at the time of Pearl Harbor. We just expected wrong. And it was not our warning that was most at fault, but our strategic analysis. We were so busy thinking through some ``obvious'' Japanese moves that we neglected to hedge against the choice they actually made.'' It may have been a somewhat ``improbable'' choice, but it was not all that improbable. We provided the undefended target, and if we know anything from history, it is that weakness is provocative. Weakness entices others into adventures they otherwise would avoid. ``The risk is that what is strange is thought to be ``improbable,'' and what seems improbable is not taken seriously.'' The book goes on to point out that: ``Surprise, when it happens to a government, is likely to be a complicated, diffuse bureaucratic thing. It includes neglect of responsibility, but also responsibility so poorly defined or so ambiguously delegated that action gets lost. It includes gaps in intelligence, but also intelligence that, like a string of pearls too precious to wear, is too sensitive to give to those who need it (and this is happening today). It includes the alarm that fails to work, but also the alarm that has gone off so often it has been disconnected. It includes the unalert watchman, but also the one who knows he'll be chewed out by his superior if he gets higher authority out of bed. It includes the contingencies that occur to no one, but also those that everyone assumes somebody else is taking care of. It includes straightforward procrastination, but also decisions protracted by internal disagreement. It includes, in addition, the inability of individual human beings to rise to the occasion until they are sure it is the occasion, which is usually too late. ``The results, at Pearl Harbor, were sudden, concentrated, and dramatic. The failure, however, was cumulative, widespread, and rather drearily familiar. This is why surprise, when it happens, is everything involved in a government's failure to anticipate effectively.'' Does that sound familiar? * * * * * Our Commission's unanimous recommendation was that U.S. analyses, practices and policies that depend on expectations of extended warning of deployment of ballistic missile threats be reviewed and, as appropriate, revised to reflect the reality of an environment in which there may be little or no warning. Specifically, we believe the Department of State should review its policies and priorities, including sanctions and non-proliferation activities, as well as our alliance activities; the intelligence community should review U.S. collection capabilities, given their changing and increasingly complex task; and, last, that the defense establishment should review both U.S. offensive and defensive capabilities as well as strategies, plans, and procedures that are based on an assumption of extended warning. In short, we are in a new circumstance and the policies and approaches that were appropriate when we could rely on extended warning no longer apply. * * * * * Recently I have been asked about the reception our report has received. I would say it has been surprisingly good. First, the press. The reaction was superb from Bill Safire, but across the country it has been modest. But then there has been a lot of unusual news competition here in Washington, D.C., to say nothing of the news of: Russia's economic problems and protests and the last Soviet intelligence chief, Mr. Primakov, being named Prime Minister. The Asian financial crisis. The Chicago Cubs' Sammy Sosa's brilliant chase for the home run title, to say nothing of Mr. McGwire's accomplishment. And, if you can believe it, Quaddafi, of all people, holding a 5-nation summit. As to the Department of State and the National Security Council, I am not aware of any public reaction. The only reaction from the Department of Defense I am aware of was to reiterate their belief that the U.S. will have ample warning of ``indigenous'' ballistic missile development programs, with which we, of course, would readily agree, if, in fact, any ``indigenous'' ballistic missile programs actually existed--which they don't. As General Lee Butler said at one of our Commission's Congressional hearings, ``If you are determined to do it, there is no body of evidence that cannot be ignored.'' In the Intelligence Community we see positive changes already. I think it is reasonably certain that the next National Intelligence Estimate will look quite different from the last one. The initial press report on the release of the Commission's findings quoted an ``anonymous CIA source'' as contending that our report was a ``worst case.'' But that was before the North Korean three-stage TD-1 launch in August. We have not seen that phrase used again since. Indeed, our report could prove to have been a ``best case,'' if and when North Korea and/or Iran announce and demonstrate still greater ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction capabilities, as they most surely will in the months ahead. * * * * * We are in a relaxed post-Cold War environment, with increased exchanges of scientists and students, relaxed export controls, leaks of classified information appearing in the press almost daily, espionage continuing apace, an explosion of ``demarches,'' which provide vital information that eventually is used to our disadvantage, and increased international trade of sophisticated dual-use technology. It is increasingly clear that anti-proliferation efforts, coupled with the inevitable imposition of still more sanctions--which already cover a large majority of the people on earth--are not stopping other nations from acquiring increasingly sophisticated weapons of mass destruction and missile technologies. There are two schools of thought as to how to deal with this obvious failure: One is to try still harder and impose still more sanctions. The second approach is to seriously work to prevent the availability of the most important technologies, try to delay the availability of the next tier of information, but to recognize that we live in a world where those who don't wish us well will inevitably gain sophisticated weapons, and that, therefore, the answer is to invest as necessary in the offensive and defense capabilities and the intelligence assets that will enable us to live with these increasingly dangerous threats. * * * * * We hear a lot about the defense budget and the top line pressure--that we can't afford more. Look, our country may not be wealthy enough to do everything in the world that everyone in the world may wish, but the first responsibility of government is to provide for the national security. And, let there be no doubt, our country is more than wealthy enough to do everything important that we need to do. Defense expenditures at 3% of GNP are the lowest in my adult lifetime. We need to stop the mindless defense cuts, rearrange our national defense to fit the post-Cold War world, and invest as necessary to assure our nation's ability to contribute to peace and stability in our still dangerous and increasingly untidy world. * * * * * I am optimistic that we will find our way. We are not a nation with but one leader. Our strength is that we have multiple centers of leadership. Our central purpose remains as compelling as ever. Quite simply, it is to guard the ramparts of freedom and to expand freedom at home and light its way in the world. This means encouraging freedom abroad and enriching it here at home. It requires purposeful diplomacy underpinned by strong, flexible military power and persuasive moral leadership. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport that the world affords.'' To those gathered here this evening, who do that each day, you have my thanks and appreciation. Thank you very much.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, September 30 marked the end of fiscal year 1998, and, for the first time since 1969, the news is written in black ink, not red. Although the final numbers will not be available for a few more weeks, it appears that the federal government will end the year with a unified budget surplus of about $70 billion. Mr. President, this is truly a dramatic turnaround. After all, it was only three years ago that President Clinton submitted a budget plotting $200 billion deficits well into the next century. I recall that skeptics back then often derided a balanced budget as a risky idea, something that could even threaten Social Security. Now, however, the skeptics seem to concede what many of us have been saying all along-- that a balanced budget is good for America and good for Social Security. What does a balanced budget mean for hard-working Americans? For one thing, it means lower interest rates. The rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage might be as high as 9.5 percent, instead of the current average of about 6.6 percent, had Washington continued to rack up deficits as large as those experienced in the early 1990s. The savings from lower interest rates can be substantial. Just a one point drop on a $100,000 mortgage amounts to monthly savings of $67, or more than $24,000 over the 30-year term of a mortgage. We are talking here, not about just a one point drop, but rates that are two to three points lower than just a few years ago. Lower interest rates on student loans make a college education more affordable for young people, and lower rates on car loans mean that hard-working men and women all around the country can stretch their budgets a little farther. A balanced budget literally means money in people's pockets. The first thing we should do at the beginning of this new fiscal year is commit that we will maintain a balanced federal budget for the American people. We can certainly debate what to do with emerging budget surpluses, but there should be no longer be any debate that our national policy ought to be to keep the budget in balance. Mr. President, now that the budget is finally in balance, we have the unique opportunity to consider other issues without the cloud of big deficits hanging overhead. For example, we ought to consider whether tax rates are at their optimal level, or whether they are too high. By definition, a budget surplus means that our government is collecting more than is necessary for current operations. People are paying simply paying more than they need to. Perhaps, instead of keeping tax rates higher than they need to be, we ought to reduce income-tax rates across the board--for single people and married couples, people with children and those without, young people just getting a start and seniors trying to make ends meet on fixed incomes. It seems to me that every taxpaying American deserves a break. We could also reduce taxes on savings and investment--lower the tax on capital gains and eliminate the death tax--two things that would help keep the already lengthy economic expansion from petering out. If we have learned anything from recent experience, it is that a strong economy, more than tax-rate increases or modest spending cuts, is what it takes to turn budget deficits into surpluses. The booming economy has been pouring billions of extra tax dollars into the Treasury. If we want that revenue flow to continue, we need to be sure that tax policy is conducive to sustained economic growth. But the fact is, tax relief is not going to pass this year. President Clinton has already indicated he will veto the modest tax-relief bill approved by the House, and we do not have the votes to reach the two-thirds majority that it would take to override a veto. So discussion of tax relief is really academic this year. Aside from tax relief, the surplus gives us a chance to pay down the national debt. Less federal borrowing frees up funds for businesses and consumers, and as I indicated earlier in my remarks, that has already led to lower interest rates. Further reductions in the debt would continue that virtuous cycle. Moreover, it seems to me that we have a moral obligation to relieve our children and grandchildren of some of the burden of paying off the debt that our generation has accrued. Another option is to use the budget surplus for Social Security. We all recognize the huge costs that will be associated with getting back to what most people thought Social Security was supposed to be--a safe and secure account where their contributions could be deposited and where they could grow to produce a nest egg for retirement. Applying the budget surplus toward those transition costs will make it much easier to make the required changes and ensure that Social Security is there for our children and grandchildren. And of course, the surplus we have in the unified federal budget really exists only as a result of the surplus that Social Security generates anyway. Take Social Security out of the calculation and the federal budget would show not a surplus of $70 billion, but a deficit somewhere in the range of $30 billion. Mr. President, there is some merit in each of these ideas: tax relief, debt repayment, and Social Security reform. The problem is, before we can even begin the debate about which of these options is best, the budget surplus is being steadily frittered away. Earlier this year, Congress, at the Clinton administration's behest, dipped into the surplus, spending about $6 billion on a variety of programs. Within the next day or two, action is expected on another Clinton request to draw down the surplus by at least another $14 billion--with not a dime going to Social Security. We are talking about the President's request to spend billions of dollars of the surplus on Bosnia, embassy security, farm aid, and the Year 2000 computer problem. Of course, funding requirements for Bosnia and these other needs were certainly foreseeable and could have been accounted for when the President sent his budget to Congress eight months ago. After all, troops have been deployed in Bosnia since 1995, and last year, the President extended their deployment there indefinitely. The need to beef up embassy security was brought up months ago, and we have known about the Year 2000 computer problem for some time. None of these things should have come as a surprise to the White House or anyone else. But by failing to account for them when he submitted his original budget in February, President Clinton was able to inflate spending on other programs and claim that his budget still fell within the constraints of last year's budget agreement. Now, the President wants all of this declared emergency spending so that it does not have to be offset elsewhere in the budget. The reality is that he wants to raid the Social Security surplus to pay for these other things. Many Americans will ask what happened to the pledge President Clinton made in his State of the Union Address earlier this year. That was when he looked the American people squarely in the eye and said: I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus--that is every penny of any surplus--until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st century. Eight months have passed, and the President has yet to send us any plan to protect Social Security. Worse yet, while publicly claiming to try to protect the surplus for Social Security, he has already been out drawing it down for other programs. The House-approved tax-relief bill that the President has criticized would use only $6.6 billion of the budget surplus for tax relief next year. That compares to the $20 billion or more of the surplus that the President wants to spend on other programs. If it is wrong to use part of the surplus for tax relief, is it not wrong to spend at least three times as much on government programs? It seems to me that this is just another example of the President trying to have it both ways. Mr. President, it is too bad we did not achieve any consensus about what to do with the budget surplus this year, because, by default, as of October 1, any surplus automatically went to reduce the national debt. If we are really serious about protecting Social Security, as to future surpluses, we should wall off the Social Security surplus so that it cannot be spent on other programs--not by the President, not by Congress. The Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, has one idea about how to do that. As I understand it, funds would be invested in genuine assets, not just government IOUs, under the supervision of the Federal Reserve. The money would be off-limits to Congress and the President, and when Congress and the President agree on a plan to save Social Security, it could be put to use for the purpose for which it was collected. In addition to protecting the Social Security surplus, in my opinion, we should provide broad-based tax relief to the American people with any other surplus. It is, after all, their hard work and their tax payments that have created the surplus we enjoy today. We ought to return any excess revenue to the people who earned it and paid it.