Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the vote Sandra Ortland, of my office, be permitted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It calls on the administration to initiate arms control negotiations with Russia on tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. The amendment seeks to push the United States down what I think is an extremely ill-advised path. First of all, tactical nuclear weapons are essential to NATO. A credible alliance nuclear policy requires widespread participation in nuclear roles by our European allies. The dual-capable aircraft and the few hundred substrategic nuclear gravity bombs which are deployed in Europe provide an essential political and military link between the European and the North Atlantic members of the alliance. The devices deployed on European soil are essential to an equitable sharing of the risk and burden associated with NATO's nuclear mission. Second, the presence of U.S. tactical nuclear systems in Europe is an important demonstration of the U.S. commitment to deterring all threats to the territory of the alliance. These weapons are a visible sign that NATO is prepared to use any and all force necessary to deter an attack. For this reason, the defense ministers of the alliance have on multiple occasions expressed their support for the continued stationing of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. I ask my colleagues to ponder for a moment the message that this amendment would send if the United States were to expand NATO while simultaneously abandoning our nuclear commitments. Such a step would mean the hollowing out of the United States article V commitments and would gut the world's most powerful, stable defensive military alliance. NATO is different and vastly superior to other multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations, because the members of the alliance do not merely pay lip service to the principles of collective defense. Third, the fact that we have tactical nuclear weapons in Europe has nothing to do with the existence of or the number of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. We maintain them in Europe for reasons that I just mentioned. Throwing our tactical nuclear weapons into an arms control agreement with Russian tactical weapons makes no sense. Finally, in the past, the United States has refused to agree to negotiate these weapons, for good reason. Simply put, it would be impossible to verify that the Russians are, in fact, complying with any agreement. Instead, the United States prudently focused on limiting delivery systems, such as missiles and bombs, which are large and observable and, therefore, verifiable. Given the importance of these weapons to the United States and the NATO alliance, and given the fact we would not be able to match the Russians cheating, as they have done on every arms control treaty we have ever signed with them, this amendment is conceptually flawed. Again, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. I will take 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think that the flaw in the argument just stated is obvious. It is true, as Senator Conrad points out, that there are no words in his amendment that talk about taking American tactical weapons out of Europe. That is not the point I was making. It is also true he could have said that there are no words in here that specifically call for the United States to reduce the number of American missiles. He then makes the point that it would be desirable, since the Russians have more tactical nuclear weapons than we do, to get them to reduce those numbers. Indeed, it would. But I ask you, Mr. President, how we are going to initiate discussions--which is what this amendment precisely calls for as a condition to moving forward here--without putting at risk some of the American tactical nuclear weapons. I discussed all of the reasons why we need those tactical nuclear weapons. The very point that Senator Conrad makes, that the Russians have a lot more than we do, makes the point that we can't afford to reduce the number that we have. So, as a practical matter, while the words about reducing our tactical weapons are not in the amendment, there is no way to get the Russians to reduce their numbers unless we reduce our numbers as well. That is why, as I said, Mr. President, this amendment, which would have the effect, if these negotiations are in any way successful from Senator Conrad's point of view, of reducing American tactical nuclear weapons. That is why this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. KYL. First of all, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Delaware and certainly support the points he made. I think it is critical to go directly to the heart of what is behind this amendment. It has been a longstanding objective of the Russians to break our tactical nuclear connection with our NATO allies; make no mistake about that. We should do nothing in the U.S. Senate that assists the Russians in achieving this long-term goal. Secondly, we need tactical nuclear weapons in the so-called credibility ladder. I would be very concerned if the only weapons we had at our disposal to act as a deterrent were strategic nuclear weapons. Mr. President, sometimes you need a graduated response. And to suggest that we should reduce the number of our weapons and we can do that by cutting out half if the Russians cut out half, that would leave us very few weapons, not enough to pose a credible deterrence. To suggest that we do that and then rely upon strategic weapons I think is something that no one in this Chamber would want to support. And finally, as our colleague from Delaware said, we should not be tying up NATO expansion with this particular amendment. So I urge my colleagues again to vote against the Conrad amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, without yet objecting, I would like to know if there is any time for a response to that prior to the vote.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I make that statement in order to assure my colleagues who are concerned about enlarged missions that it is not our intention to try to expand the mission of NATO. But what we are concerned about is helping the administration of the United States define very clearly to our European allies our strategic vision of NATO as a defense alliance. Unfortunately, some Europeans have a different point of view. They would limit NATO solely to the mission of collective defense against an armed attack, elevate the WEU to the principal military organization for responding to all other threats to NATO security, and cuts the United States out of decisionmaking on issues affecting our vital interests. Some undermine our ability to shape NATO as a viable 21st century military alliance, and that is why I offered this amendment, to help make clear an unambiguous U.S. policy on the future direction of the alliance using the fundamental principles which have existed since 1949 when these concepts were first enunciated and which in the Foreign Relations Committee report at that time said that, of course, each party would have to decide in the light of circumstances surrounding the case and the nature and extent of the assistance whether, in fact, an armed attack had occurred and article 5 thus brought into play--armed attack relating to different kinds of situations that might not be a direct invasion but might, from other kinds of causes nevertheless, pose a security risk to the states within NATO. So I really believe we have not expanded the current policy, but I hope we have clarified for our friends in Europe the limits of the U.S. policy, the vision, the strategic vision that we have. I appreciate the questions raised by the Senators from New York and Virginia to help us clarify that point.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from New York that I am in total agreement with the Senator from Delaware. That is the case, that this was not intended to be an enlargement of existing NATO policy.

Mr. KYL. I would be delighted to yield for a question from the Senator from New York.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous the following Senators be listed as cosponsors to my amendment--Helms, Roth, Biden, and Smith of Oregon.

Mr. KYL. That is an excellent question, Mr. President, and it is, of course, the latter--something that I think the Senator from Virginia and I support. I point to the specific language to confirm my point. In paragraph 5, ``common threats,'' it says: ``NATO members will face common threats to their security in the post-cold war environment, including. . .'' Then we list threats. We hope they will never arise. That is the context in which this particular provision is listed. If I could just close my comment here, Mr. President, because the Senator from Delaware wishes to comment. This amendment merely conditions Senate advice and consent to its understanding of U.S. policy as it relates to the revising strategic concept of NATO. It acknowledges the principles that have animated our participation in NATO from the very beginning and also identifies the threats that we may face. It states that the Senate understands that the core concepts contained in the 1991 document remain valid today. I say to my friend from Virginia, in essence, that the 1991 strategic concept provides a foundation on which to build the revised statement of NATO strategy and sets forth the 10 principles which the Senator understands will be in the new document. I urge my colleagues who support and oppose the expansion of NATO to support this amendment and to put the Senate on record as defining the NATO of the future. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KYL. I am happy to try to answer the question.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will be delighted to answer the question of my distinguished colleague from Virginia. I will begin, first of all, by setting forth the essential concept or idea underlying this amendment. The future course of the NATO alliance, its core purposes and its strategic orientation in this post-cold war era, will be decided by allied negotiations upcoming on the so-called revised strategic concept of NATO. The new document is going to be agreed upon in a little bit less than a year--next April. Senate advice and consent to the NATO enlargement issue here presents a unique opportunity for the Senate of the United States to speak on this issue, an opportunity we would not otherwise have. We, therefore, can help to lay out the strategic vision of NATO from the standpoint of the United States and thus influence the outcome of these negotiations. In my view, the current resolution focuses too much on what NATO should not be and should not do. The resolution does not attempt to lay out a comprehensive set of principles to guide development of the strategic concept. And so this proposed amendment will establish the Senate's vision of the future of NATO and, I hope, help to lay the foundation for American positions on the strategic concept. Here is the background that will lead up to the answer to the Senator's question. I hope it is the only expression of concern about the amendment because I would certainly like to have his support for what I think is an amendment that will be overwhelmingly supported by both proponents and opponents of expansion. Our principal objective here, I say to the Senator from Virginia, is to ensure that NATO remains an arm of U.S. power and influence. NATO, not the WEU or the OSCE, must remain the principal foundation for the security interests of its members. This means NATO must be prepared militarily to defend against a range of common threats to our vital interests. We have tried to identify what they all are. Now, some of us may not like what some of them are and may not like the fact that we will have to respond to them. For example, a radical Islamic terrorism threat in the North Atlantic region may require that we defend against that. That didn't used to be a big problem for NATO. What I have done is insert the words ``in the Atlantic area''--words that were not in the underlying resolution of ratification that came out of the committee. So what I have tried to do is both to, yes, acknowledge a threat that we all acknowledge that could arise, but to limit the nature of our response to that in the Atlantic area by the specific language of the section that the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Texas are concerned about. This amendment underscores that collective defense will remain the core alliance mission. But it acknowledges that new threats have emerged in the post-cold war era that will require NATO to adapt its military forces and defense planning mechanism.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. The Senator is correct that the concern at the time was the great conflict between the West and communism from the Soviet Union. I suggest the Senator probably knows better than any of the rest of us about the longstanding disputes, some ethnic and religious in origin, which were, perhaps, always under the surface. But at that time, of course, the Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield. I think I am out of time.

Mr. KYL. Yes. Mr. President, that is correct. We explicitly, for example, insert ``in the North Atlantic area" which is not in the underlying resolution of ratification.

Mr. KYL. That is correct.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up an amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I, again, thank the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for allowing me about 20 seconds. May I also say to the Senator from Minnesota, who has just spoken, and the Senator from Indiana that I subscribe to their remarks and appreciate the strength of their statements. Mr. President, the United States Senate today has the rare opportunity to right a historical wrong. In the years immediately following World War II, Europe was forcibly divided. As the United States helped to rebuild the nations of Western Europe, the nations of Central and Eastern Europe were subjugated under the heavy hand of Soviet domination. To counter this Soviet expansion into Europe, the United States and its Western European allies forged the most effective defense alliance in modern history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The military and political strength of this alliance made it the guarantor of an unprecedented period of peace in Western Europe and contributed significantly to the eventual demise of the Soviet Union. Today, the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are free, and three of them--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--are seeking to take advantage of an opportunity denied them following World War II, the opportunity to join NATO, an alliance described by Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington as ``the security organization of Western civilization [whose] primary purpose [in the post-Cold War world] is to defend and preserve that civilization.'' It is my hope that the United States Senate will grant them this opportunity--an opportunity that these nations deserve and have earned. In the years following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, these three nations have demonstrated a commitment to the Western ideals embodied by the NATO alliance. Their dogged pursuit of democratic institutions, free market economies, and human freedom will serve to remind the existing members of NATO what it means to be a part of the Western world. Indeed, their dedication to these ideals is all the more zealous because they know first hand what it is like to suffer under a regime that denies its citizens basic human freedom. The enlargement of the NATO alliance to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic serves America's national interests. The essence of the U.S. national interest in the world is promoting the security, well-being, and expansion of the community of nations that respect their citizens' democratic rights. Although this is a moral policy, it is not an entirely altruistic one. The freedom, prosperity, and security of Americans--our standard of living and our domestic civil liberties--all are enhanced and bolstered when this community of free nations grows bigger and stronger, especially when it does so in Europe, where our closest allies and our most profound interests are concentrated. The enlargement of NATO will also send a clear message to any power who may wish to interfere with the ongoing process of democratization in Europe: you will not succeed, so do not even try. I know that the enlargement of NATO will not be free. Clearly, additional financial resources will be required on the part of all NATO members--old and new alike. These new costs must be shared equitably by all allies. Although enlargement will ultimately require an increased financial commitment by the United States, I believe that the substantial dividends that will accrue to the U.S. from enlargement justify our strong support for this endeavor. I urge my colleagues to support the admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO, so that, as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently noted, ``three nations who have long been our allies in spirit will become our allies in fact.'' It is the right thing to do, and it serves our national interest.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the A+ accounts bill, and I want to commend its chief Senate sponsor, Senator Paul Coverdell, for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. President, this legislation does several things. It would allow more people to save for education in tax-preferred education savings accounts. The savings could be used for higher education, as well as education at the elementary and secondary levels. The bill would extend the existing tax exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance through the year 2002, and it would make savings in qualified state tuition plans tax-free. It would also create a new category of tax- exempt facility bonds to assist with school construction in high-growth areas. Mr. President, perhaps the most important part of the bill is also the most controversial: the provisions that expand the allowable uses of education savings accounts to include elementary and secondary education. These provisions would put additional resources under the control of the people who know and understand the needs of children best--their families. Here is how it works. Families earning less than $95,000--$150,000 on a joint tax return--could put up to $2,000 in after-tax dollars into special interest-bearing accounts for each child. The funds would accumulate tax free, and could be withdrawn for any educational expense--from books and transportation to special programs and private- school tuition. A family saving just $10 per week could accumulate about $4,000 by the time a newborn enters the first grade. Over the course of the child's education, the money could be spent on a school uniform, special tutoring, a home computer, tuition at a private or parohial school, an SAT preparation course, or any other educational expense. This is one of the rare occasions in Washington when we are talking about empowering parents--rather than government bureaucrats--to decide how best to satisfy their children's educational needs. An estimated 14 million families are expected to take advantage of these new tax- preferred savings accounts. Defenders of the status quo will throw up a series of arguments about why parents should not be trusted with more control over their children's education. Some will suggest that this will divert resources from public schools into private schools. Let me make two points about that. First, I think it is important to recall that we are not talking about a new subsidy for private or parochial schools. To the contrary, we are talking about allowing families to keep more of what they earn-- after all, it is their money--to send their children to the elementary or secondary school of their choice. We already go far beyond what would be allowed by this bill when we provide federal financial assistance to students at the college level, including students who attend private or religious institutions. No one argues that such choice harms public colleges or universities. In fact, it is choice and competition that has made our Nation's colleges and universities the best in the world. So I am perplexed why anyone would fear giving parents more choice and control at the elementary and secondary levels, as well. That is where the real crisis in education exists today, and it is where choice and competition will do the most good. Second, providing families with tax incentives for education savings will not decrease federal or state funding for public schools by a single dime. The fact is, Congress is likely to approve increases in funding for education in addition to the incentives that would come with the Coverdell bill. The budget resolution that we approved two weeks ago does exactly that, adhering to the spending levels set out in the budget agreement negotiated between Congress and the President just last year. Here is what President Clinton said about the education-spending levels in that agreement last July. These are his words: * * * at the heart of this balanced budget [agreement] is the historic investment in education--the most significant increase in education funding in more than 30 years. The most significant increase in education spending in a generation-- that is the level of funding that is provided under the budget we just passed, and it is in addition to the assistance provided under the Coverdell bill. Another point: The people who stand to gain the most from this legislation are those of more modest means who might not have the same choice or opportunity without the help that the Coverdell bill would provide. Of the people currently opting for Catholic schools, for example, 68 percent have annual incomes of $35,000 or less. Wealthier people obviously have the means to send their children to the school of their choice whether they receive a tax break or not. And in any event, wealthier taxpayers will not even qualify for the relief in this bill, give the income thresholds that are set out in it. It seems to me, Mr. President, that all of the agruments against the bill are based upon the flawed premise that public schools cannot compete successfully with other institutions. They are wrong. Many public schools have very well-regarded programs--programs that meet or exceed what is offered to students elsewhere--and it is likely that these schools would not only retain their current student body, but add to it with barriers to choice removed. And with additional enrollment would come additional funds for their budgets. It is true that failing schools would be forced to improve or face declining enrollment. But is it really our goal to force students with few financial resources to remain in a failing environment? Should they not have the same options that others have to find a school that better meets their needs? In Senate hearings earlier this year, low-income parents questioned why the schoolhouse door is often closed to their children--why they are kept from moving their children to schools that can better meet their children's needs. Why, these parents wanted to know, are their kids denied the chance to attend safer schools? They are right to ask questions. They deserve--their children deserve--access to a quality education. In my opinion, the single best thing we could do to improve the quality of education in this country is give parents more choice and control over where they send their children. It is an idea with broad support among the American people. A 1997 poll conducted by the Center for Education Reform found support for school choice among the general public at 82 percent. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies reported support among African Americans at more than 70 percent. It is an idea whose time has come. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of the A+ bill. Amendment No. 2288 (Purpose: To provide incentives for States to establish and administer periodic teacher testing and merit pay programs for elementary school and secondary school teachers)

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words this afternoon about the U.N. global climate treaty that the Clinton administration agreed to in Kyoto, Japan, this past December, and which you, as the Presiding Officer, have taken a real lead in helping your colleagues here in the Senate to understand. In fact, I know that you helped to lead a delegation to those proceedings in Kyoto. This treaty will require the United States to drastically reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions, presumably by rationing our energy consumption and assessing taxes on energy use and production. The reduction of pollutants, of course, is a laudable goal. I wholeheartedly support efforts that will produce a cleaner environment. But what the administration fails to adequately appreciate is that protecting the environment is a global issue, one all nations must actively take part in if global environmental protection is truly to be attained. The administration would like the American people to believe that this debate is about who is for or against the environment; but, that is not the case. This debate is about whether or not this particular treaty is in the best interests of the American people and the global environment. The underlying hypothesis used by proponents of the treaty is that greenhouse gases, which trap the sun's infrared rays and heat the earth's atmosphere, have become so abundant in the atmosphere that a ``global warming'' effect has commenced, and that the cause of this phenomenon is manmade. On the basis of this as-yet unproven connection between human activity and the climate, delegates at the climate change conference in Kyoto reached an agreement to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The treaty, if ratified, would legally bind the U.S. to cut its overall emissions of six gases by seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012. However, 130 developing countries, such as Mexico, China, Korea, and India, would not be held liable to these same standards. The evidence of global warming is inconclusive, at best. For the past 20 years, precisely the same 20 years during which carbon dioxide levels have increased the most, the earth has actually cooled. This cooling flies in the face of the theory that man-made emissions are causing a global warming effect. Models cannot accurately predict what the weather will be like next week, let alone what temperatures will prevail on Earth in the next century. The only consensus that has been reached within the scientific community--that future effects of fossil- fuel use are most likely to be gradual over many decades to come--gives good reason for the U.S. government not to rush to judgement. Committing the U.S. to these targets will have severe economic effects on American families and workers. According to the Heritage Foundation, holding emissions to 1990 levels will raise energy prices between 50 and 200 percent; average households would pay $1,620 in additional taxes a year; and the economy would contract by a total of $3.3 trillion, all by the year 2020. I note that these figures are based on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels only; going seven percent below these levels, as agreed to by the Clinton administration, will result in more serious hardships for the American people. Furthermore, the AFL-CIO estimates that reducing emissions to 1990 levels will result in the loss of 1.25 to 1.5 million American jobs. And these jobs will not simply disappear; rather, industry will move overseas and reestablish itself in those countries that are not legally bound to gas-emissions targets. These combined effects would place the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage, while failing to address the global problem of soaring amounts of pollution produced by the developing nations of the world. Meanwhile, the developing countries are projected to continue accelerating their use of fossil fuels during the next century. By 2015, China will surpass the U.S. in total carbon emissions. Without the full participation of the developing countries in any treaty of this kind, unilateral attempts by the developed nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will not significantly slow the steady increase of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. In sum, the United States should not be party to a global climate treaty that is not supported by a scientific consensus, that puts an unfair burden on American workers and consumers, and that asks us to turn back the clock on economic growth and our standard of living. More importantly, this treaty fails to effectively address the issue because it ignores the developing countries of the world. It simply does not make sense, either environmentally or economically, to focus on the nations that are already spending billions on pollution control and making substantial progress, while ignoring developing nations-- countries where emissions could be curbed by employing the same basic technologies the United States has used so successfully to reduce its levels of pollution. U.S. companies, using the best available technology, are able to eliminate the bulk of pollution from their emissions. To achieve an additional increment of pollution reduction, developed nations like the U.S. would be required to expend inordinate sums of money in pursuit of only marginal improvements. The costs associated with attempting to squeeze out the last increments of pollution will heavily outweigh any benefits in the developed nations. However, in countries where pollution-control technology is not as advanced or widespread as it is here, a dollar spent on equipment will provide far greater reductions in overall pollution. Thus, the cost/ benefit ratio favors pressing developing nations to catch up with us. The Global Climate Treaty does not do this. Faced with certain defeat on this issue, the administration has resorted to a level of fear mongering which I think has been unmatched since the 1970s, when some of the same scientists who are promoting global warming warned at that time that we were about to enter upon the next ice age. I find it hard to believe that in a mere 20 years, our climate has moved from one extreme to the other. In a December Wall Street Journal article, Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine point out that ``there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans are responsible for increasing global temperatures.'' But the administration, in an effort to rally support, issues apocalyptic warnings that, if global warming is not headed off, we will experience floods, droughts, rising sea levels, and the spread of infectious diseases. The global warming hypothesis should not be taken as fact; Americans should not be scared into accepting unsubstantiated scenarios as the truth. The Senate fulfilled the first half of its ``advise and consent'' role this summer by passing the Byrd-Hagel resolution 95 to 0. That bipartisan advice instructed the administration not to sign a treaty that did not include the developing countries of the world in the same emission-control requirements, or a treaty that would cause great economic harm to America. The treaty to which the administration has agreed meets neither of these guidelines. Therefore, because the administration was unwilling to consider the Senate's advice, I do not believe the Senate will give its consent--nor should it.