Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am aware the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, had desired to speak against my amendment here. I am not aware of anyone else who intends to speak on it. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Do I understand there has been an agreement reached to have the vote at 3?

Mr. KYL. I certainly appreciate the comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee. I just wanted to comment on two of the points he made. It is, indeed, true that the total amount of money to be expended on Pell grants has been increased by about $1 billion. That goes to increase the maximum Pell grant to $3,000. It does not, as the Senator, of course, is well aware, fund this category of people who I contend have been disadvantaged as a result of the 1992 act, the independent students without dependents. So the increase in the funding in the bill has made it better for those who receive the grants, but it has not enabled us to cover the people that I am proposing to cover. Second, with respect to the LIHEAP Program, just to make it very clear, this offset does not eliminate the LIHEAP Program. It reduces by about one-half the funding for the LIHEAP Program, which, incidentally, is almost the same amount of reduction that was recommended by President Clinton in his 1995 budget submission.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, that is certainly fine with me if it does not inhibit the Senator.

Mr. KYL. Would this mean we could take up my amendment at roughly 11 o'clock?

Mr. KYL. I was prepared to begin a debate at this point on an amendment which I laid down yesterday, which my understanding was we were going to try to conclude prior to roughly the noon hour because of a request by two other Senators, I believe Senator Moynihan and another Senator, to speak during that period of time. I just wonder if Senator Specter could be involved here and if we could quickly get an agreement. I am perfectly willing to accommodate the Senator from Delaware, but we need to get an agreement on how we are going to proceed here because I was going to conclude my part of this and then attend a committee hearing, which may not be possible if the Senator moves forward. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania what his intentions are. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I at this point ask if the pending business would permit me to offer an amendment.

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

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I have sent an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me simply indicate generally what this amendment does. This amendment will provide an additional $528 million for the Pell Grant Program, boosting that level to the amount recommended by the Appropriations Committee. And that money will come from the LIHEAP program. It would be a direct offset. So that the $528 million would come from LIHEAP and would go to fund Pell grants. Madam President, this amendment is very simple. It will provide an additional $528 million for the Pell Grant Program, boosting the amount in the bill to the level recommended by the House of Representatives. Pell grant funding would go from $6.910 billion to $7.438 billion. The offset is from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. The additional Pell grant funding is intended to finance changes in eligibility--that is, to correct problems that have arisen as a result of the current law phaseout of certain independent students at income levels that are lower than those for dependent students. Like the House bill, the funding is contingent upon the authorizing committees acting on the proposal. I am not attempting an end run around the normal committee process, just attempting to ensure that the funds will be available should the Education Committee concur in the change. The Clinton administration originally estimated the cost of the proposal at $725 million in fiscal year 1998, but it is my understanding that administration officials are now satisfied with the House numbers. In any event, I believe we ought to put as high a priority on Pell grants as the House did in its version of the Labor- HHS bill. Madam President, it was the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 that established a separate allowance for independent students without dependents. The income protection allowance, which is a fixed amount of a family's income that is excluded from need determination, is based on the family's household size and the number in the household attending college. The problem is that the separate allowance established by the 1992 act creates a substantial disparity among groups of students. For example, when compared with other students with the same number of family members in the household and one member in college, the allowance for 1997-1998 is $5,750 less in the case of married students without dependents. It is $5,940 less in the case of single students without dependents, according to the Department of Education. And because the income protection allowance for independent students without dependents is not indexed for inflation, the gap can only be expected to widen each year. The proposed change in eligibility, which the funding in my amendment is intended to finance, would bring the proportion of students in this group who would be eligible for Pell grants closer to the proportion that existed prior to the establishment of the separate allowance in the 1992 act. Students in this group are typically older students with annual family incomes of between $10,000 and $20,000. Madam President, here is a State-by-State breakdown of the number of students who lost eligibility under the separate allowance. The numbers, which were supplied by the Education Department, compare the period 1992-1993 before the 1992 reauthorization with the period 1993- 1994 after reauthorization: Alabama...........................................................4,399 Alaska..............................................................548 Arizona...........................................................6,417 Arkansas..........................................................2,525 California.......................................................24,314 Colorado..........................................................5,204 Connecticut.......................................................2,645 Delaware............................................................472 District of Columbia................................................426 Florida..........................................................17,792 Georgia...........................................................5,196 Hawaii..............................................................561 Idaho.............................................................1,402 Illinois.........................................................10,848 Indiana...........................................................5,467 Iowa..............................................................4,247 Kansas............................................................4,434 Kentucky..........................................................3,754 Louisiana.........................................................5,765 Maine.............................................................1,364 Maryland..........................................................4,047 Massachusetts.....................................................5,778 Michigan.........................................................15,254 Minnesota.........................................................7,432 Mississippi.......................................................2,751 Missouri..........................................................7,963 Montana...........................................................1,561 Nebraska..........................................................2,792 Nevada............................................................1,891 New Hampshire.....................................................1,098 New Jersey........................................................5,920 New Mexico........................................................2,002 New York.........................................................19,477 North Carolina....................................................4,231 North Dakota......................................................1,335 Ohio.............................................................12,864 Oklahoma..........................................................4,621 Oregon............................................................4,031 Pennsylvania......................................................9,535 Rhode Island......................................................1,314 South Carolina....................................................2,087 South Dakota......................................................1,324 Tennessee.........................................................4,972 Texas............................................................15,126 Utah..............................................................4,074 Vermont.............................................................353 Virginia..........................................................5,168 Washington........................................................5,636 West Virginia.....................................................1,011 Wisconsin.........................................................6,258 Wyoming.............................................................730 Puerto Rico, other................................................3,347 The figures I just cited will give Senators a rough idea of the number of additional students that would benefit from the added funding in my amendment. Madam President, Professor David Breneman, the dean of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia, testified before the Senate Finance Committee back in April about the effectiveness of various forms of Federal aid. He concluded that ``the Pell Grant program has the merit of targeting aid to students who would be unable to attend college without the grant.'' In other words, Pell grants are probably the most efficient and effective way of targeting Federal aid to those students who need it most. And unlike other forms of assistance, which might reach those who have the means and determination to attend college with or without the Government's help, it does less to fuel tuition inflation. Now I know the offset for the additional Pell grant funding will be controversial for some. It would come from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP], a program that was set up nearly 16 years ago to temporarily--temporarily--supplement existing cash assistance programs and help low-income individuals pay for home fuel costs that were escalating at the time. But the world is a very different place than it was in 1981. Gone are the long lines at the gas pumps and skyrocketing energy prices. As we prepare to cross a bridge to the 21st century, we should look beyond programs designed to cope with an energy crisis of 20 years ago--a crisis that has come and gone--and focus instead on how to prepare young people for the high technology, more competitive economy of the future. Madam President, fuel costs have not only stabilized since 1981, they have declined significantly in real terms. Figures provided to me by one of Arizona's majority utilities, Arizona Public Service, indicate that average residential rates for electricity have declined 15 percent in real terms since 1980. And that does not take into account a 1.2- percent rate decrease that just became effective on July 1. It is no secret that I have been skeptical of the continued need for LIHEAP. I have offered amendments on the subject several times in recent years. But I would point out that in its fiscal year 1995 budget submission, the Clinton administration, too, recommended substantial reductions in the program. As noted in the President's fiscal year 95 budget, * * * fuel prices have decreased by 40 percent in real terms; the cost of electricity has dropped by about 13 percent in real terms; and the percent of income spent for home heating for households at or below 150 percent of poverty guidelines has dropped by about one-third. He went on to propose a 50-percent reduction in funding for the program that year. Last year, President Clinton proposed outyear cuts in LIHEAP--a $90 million reduction in 1999, and a $181 million reduction in 2000. The Office of Management and Budget advised my office that the declining figures were due to standard percentage reductions applied to programs that were not considered a top priority. Last December, it was widely reported that the Clinton administration would recommend a 25-percent reduction in the program this year. So there has been skepticism about the continuing need for the program, even at the White House. Madam President, the States themselves have already shown remarkable ability to meet the energy needs of those requiring assistance, refusing to allow public utilities to shut off power to delinquent customers and setting up payment plans and other options. It seems to me that, given the States' track records and the stable or declining price of energy, this is a good time to begin cutting back on LIHEAP spending so that we can target the resources to other pressing needs. In closing, the bipartisan budget agreement that we passed in July was intended to extend new opportunities in education to middle- and upper middle-income families, and it will through a variety of new tax credits. But we have the chance today to target additional Pell grant assistance to more lower- and middle-income people, so that all American families have the same opportunity to secure a brighter future. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment to put more money into the Pell Grant Program. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Concurrent Resolution which expresses the sense of the Congress that Russia should refrain from providing additional missile assistance to Iran, and calls for the imposition of sanctions should Russia fail to stop. A broad, bipartisan consensus exists among leaders in the Congress and the administration that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction [WMD] and ballistic missiles used to deliver them is one of the key national security challenges facing the United States today. In fact, in 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12938 declaring that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them constitutes ``an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States,'' and that he had therefore decided to ``declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.'' The President reaffirmed this Executive Order in 1995 and 1996. The Concurrent Resolution that I have submitted today has bipartisan, bicameral support. Over the past few weeks I have enjoyed working with Representative Jane Harman, the principal sponsor of the resolution in the House of Representatives, and I am pleased to announce that Senators Feinstein, D'Amato, Inhofe, Allard, and Burns are original cosponsors of the legislation. This resolution is important because Iran's ballistic missile program--in concert with its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs--poses a grave threat to the United States and our allies in the region. Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism led by a regime which is hostile to the United States. Its chemical and biological weapons programs, which began in the early 1980's, are now capable of producing a wide variety of highly lethal chemical and biological agents, and Tehran has an aggressive program to develop nuclear weapons. In addition, Iran currently possesses Scud-B and Scud-C ballistic missiles, and with Russian assistance, is working to develop longer- range missiles. Russia has stated that it recognizes the danger posed by Iran's missile program. At the Helsinki summit in March 1997, President Yeltsin reaffirmed that it was not Moscow's policy to assist Iran's missile program, since such missiles could be used to threaten Russia in the future. In addition, Russia is a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime [MTCR], which regulates the sale of missile technology to non-member nations, and has signed a bilateral agreement with the United States pledging not to conclude additional arms contracts with Iran. Despite Russia's assurances and bilateral and international commitments, recent press articles indicate Russian entities have engaged in missile cooperation with Iran. On February 12, 1997, the Los Angeles Times reported that Russia had recently transferred SS-4 missile technology to Iran. The transfer reportedly involved detailed instructions on how to build the missile and some unspecified components. This transfer is of particular concern since the SS-4 has a range of 2,000 km--more than three times greater than any missile currently in Iran's arsenal. In addition to the transfer of SS-4 technology, Russia appears to be selling Iran a wide variety of other equipment and material useful in the design and manufacture of ballistic missiles. According to a Washington Times article published on May 22, 1997, Russian entities signed numerous missile-related contracts with Iran's Defense Industries Organization in 1996. The contracts reportedly included deals worth over $100,000 for projects such as the construction of a wind tunnel for missile design, manufacture of missile models, and the sale of missile design software. Construction of the wind tunnel alone is expected to cost several million dollars. These press reports are corroborated by an unclassified report to Congress, prepared by the CIA and coordinated throughout the Intelligence Community, that was released in June. The report titled, ``The Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions,'' states that, ``Russia supplied a variety of ballistic missile-related goods to foreign countries [in 1996], especially Iran.'' The report also noted that Russia and China continued to be the primary suppliers of missile technology and were ``key to any future efforts to stem the flow of dual-use goods and modern weapons to countries of concern.'' This Concurrent Resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should demand that the Russian government take concrete actions to stop governmental and nongovernmental entities from providing missile assistance to Iran. If Russia fails to respond to United States concerns, the Resolution calls on the President to impose sanctions on the responsible Russian entities in accordance with existing United States law. This resolution is a reasonable response to an important problem. I am pleased that Russian President Yeltsin has clearly stated that it is not Russia's policy to assist Iran's missile program. But unfortunately, there continue to be discrepancies between Russian words and deeds. The time has come for Russia's leaders to halt this dangerous missile cooperation with a dangerous regime in Tehran. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, when the budget agreement was announced in May, I expressed a great deal of skepticism about whether it would provide adequate tax relief to hard-working American families, whether Medicare's solvency would be assured, and whether the savings necessary to achieve a balanced federal budget would really be obtained. After reviewing the two bills that are before the Senate today--bills intended to implement the budget agreement--I must still conclude that they are, by themselves, inadequate. Too little tax relief is provided to Americans--with or without children--who go to work every day, play by the rules, and struggle to make ends meet. Too little is invested in creating jobs and making our country more competitive. The legislation does extend Medicare solvency, but only for a decade. It is disappointing, to say the least, that President Clinton failed to step up to the plate and fight for the significant reforms that an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Senate supported to put Medicare on a more stable footing for our children and grandchildren in the decades to come. Nevertheless, Mr. President, the bills represent steps in the right direction. They provide at least some tax relief to millions of families who are trying to do right by their children, to young Americans who are striving to get a higher education and make our communities better and more productive places for us to live, and for seniors who need relief from capital gains or estate taxes to make ends meet in their retirement years. They will extend Medicare solvency, while expanding the health-care choices available to seniors. There are tough, new antifraud provisions designed to weed out and punish those who would steal Medicare dollars from older Americans. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will be able to save money tax-free to pay for health care in new medical savings accounts, and seniors will no longer be denied the right to purchase health services from a doctor of their choosing. In addition to Medicare reform, the bill reforms Medicaid, and achieves savings in the Student Loan Program, Federal retirement, and housing. It raises money from the auctioning of broadcast spectrum. In all, the legislation achieves about $130 billion in savings over a 5- year period. Should we have done more? Yes. While many people will benefit from the tax-relief bill, many others will be left out. But with President Clinton opposed to a broader tax-relief package, and without the votes to pass a bill over his objection, it is clear that a more far-reaching measure has no chance of passage in the near term. So we are faced with the choice of either providing at least a limited amount of tax relief this year, or denying relief to everyone. For me, that is an easy choice. We ought to do what we can now and keep fighting for more. This is by no means the end of the fight. Just as the tax relief provided to small businesses last year was not the end of the road, this is not the end, either. It is one more step in the direction of providing the tax relief that the American people so badly need and deserve. The amendment I offered to the budget agreement back in May makes clear that the door is open for additional tax relief next year, and I intend to be back fighting for more. And in any event, interim tax relief, which really adds a great deal of complexity to the Tax Code, is no substitute for permanent structural reforms that will move us toward a fairer, flatter tax that will provide relief for everyone. Mr. President, the cornerstone of the tax bill before the Senate today is the $500-per-child tax credit that Senators Grams, Coats, Hutchinson, Nickles, and I introduced on the day Congress reconvened this year. It is an idea that many of us have pursued for a number of years, and it has been a top goal of the Republican Congress since 1994. With the idea finally on the verge of becoming law, others are now claiming credit. As President Kennedy put it, ``victory has a thousand fathers.'' So be it. Mr. President, just think what $500 per child will mean to a married couple with two children and an income of $35,000 a year. That family will see a 40 percent reduction in its tax bill. Think what that will mean in terms of helping to pay for child care, health or dental care, clothes, or a trip to summer camp. Obviously, $500 is no panacea-- anyone who has raised a child knows how expensive a proposition that can be--but it will help. Think what a single mom in the inner city could do with an extra $500 per child. It might help provide after-school care to keep a son or daughter off the streets, safe, and out of trouble. Maybe it would help her send her child to a better, safer school, or just put food on the table. We are talking here about letting hard-working, tax-paying families keep more of what they earn to do what they know is best for themselves and their children. We put our faith and trust in families. We also create new opportunities in this bill for people to save for their retirement in enhanced individual retirement accounts. Nonworking spouses will be able to save a full $2,000 annually in an IRA regardless of the working spouses' access to a pension plan. Penalty- free early withdrawals would be allowed for first-time home purchases to make the dream of home ownership a reality for more Americans. For those trying to sell their homes, we provide a meaningful capital-gains exclusion. This legislation provides significant new incentives to help people save for a college education. And what better way to ensure that the next generation is prepared to lead us to a brighter future than to ensure greater access to higher learning: new opportunities to save tax-free in education savings accounts, an extension of the tax exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance, and a $2,500- per-year student-loan interest deduction. Mr. President, the family and education credits are probably the most popular parts of this tax-relief package, but there are other important provisions included as well. I know that not as many people are concerned about capital-gains and estate-tax relief compared to the education tax credits in particular, but I would suggest that unless good paying jobs are available for young people when they graduate, education tax credits will amount to little more than empty promises. We need to do more, and that is why the capital-gains and estate-tax provisions are in this bill. Three decades ago, the Nation's bipartisan leadership joined together in calling for a deep reduction in the capital-gains tax rate. In fact, it was President John F. Kennedy who recommended a plan that would have taxed only 30 percent of long-term gains. In other words, President Kennedy would have excluded 70 percent of gains--a far greater reduction than is contained here. There was a reason that he 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.'' In other words, if we are concerned about whether new jobs are being created, whether new technology is developed, whether workers have the tools they need to do a more efficient job, we should support measures that reduce the cost of capital to facilitate the achievement of all of these things. Remember, for every employee, there was an employer who took risks, made investments, and created jobs. But that employer needed capital to start. President Kennedy recognized that. He recognized that our country is stronger and more prosperous when our people are united in support of a common goal--and alternatively, that we are weaker and more vulnerable when Americans are divided among lines of race, gender, and income. While some politicians may employ divisive class warfare to their political advantage today, President Kennedy simply put good policy ahead of good politics. And I am with him. The capital-gains reductions in this bill will help keep the economy on track, producing new jobs and new opportunities for all Americans to get ahead. It will free up resources locked up in old technology and old investments, and make them available to update equipment and factories, and put Americans in a more competitive position in the global marketplace. The estate-tax reductions, too, will help create new jobs. According to the Heritage Foundation, outright repeal would create as many as 150,000 new jobs a year. But this bill does not repeal the death tax. It effectively adjusts the tax for inflation over a 9-year period, and that is all it does. While it provides an additional exemption for family owned businesses and farms, the rules are so complex that I predict few, if any, will actually benefit from them. There is something unseemly, though, about a tax that forces grieving families to visit the funeral home and the tax collector at the same time. There is something wrong with a tax that takes more than half of whatever someone has managed to acquire over his or her lifetime with after-tax dollars. The death tax ought to be repealed outright, and I intend to continue to fight for that objective. Mr. President, what a difference a Republican majority in Congress has made. In 1993, President Clinton and the Democrat-controlled Congress passed the largest tax increase in history, increased spending and left a budget in deficit for as far as the eye could see. This week, Congress will send to the President a budget that aims for balance, limits government spending, extends the solvency of Medicare, and provides badly needed tax relief to millions of Americans. It is safe to say that none of these things could have been achieved without a Republican majority. These bills will not accomplish everything we set out to do, but with President Clinton in office, it is unlikely that we can do much more right now. I intend to support these bills as steps in the right direction, but I intend to keep pushing next year for the kinds of entitlement reforms that will protect the next generation, and expand on the tax relief that today's generation needs and deserves.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to comment on the resolution now before the Senate. It is clear from the number of Members who are signatories to this resolution that the majority of this Chamber has significant reservations, as it should, about the ratification of any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. I intend to vote for the resolution, but I must say I believe it does not go far enough in bringing to light the faults of the convention. I'd like to amplify some points that are touched upon only briefly in the resolution. I am very concerned about the call to move away from voluntary goals, as framed in the original convention, toward legally binding emissions- limitation targets and timetables for the United States, as well as the other developed, or annex I, countries that are party to the convention. The 1992 treaty, ratified by the Senate, called for the economically developed countries to undertake voluntary actions to aim to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the only major developed nations that will meet this voluntary target of 1990 levels by 2000 are Britain--because it switched its fuel for electricity production from heavily subsidized coal to North Sea natural gas--and Germany--because it is able to count efficiency gains from replacing its ancient East German powerplants. Despite the fact that the United States is expected to miss its own target by about 10 percent, the administration, by signing the Berlin mandate in March of 1995, now believes it is a good idea to pursue additional emissions reduction targets after the year 2000. The Berlin mandate, which was not presented to the Senate for approval, sets up a process to negotiate a new treaty that will: First, commit the United States, and other developed countries to a legally binding agreement--contrary to the earlier approved agreement; and second, specifically exempt the 130 developing countries, including the emerging economies of China, Mexico, and Korea, from any additional commitments. It does not make sense, either environmentally or economically, to focus on the nations which are already spending billions on pollution control and making substantial progress, while ignoring the so-called developing countries. U.S. companies, using the best available technology, are able to eliminate a great deal of pollution from their emissions. To achieve an additional increment of pollution reduction requires a much larger amount of money to be spent. Because of the law of diminishing returns, the costs will heavily outweigh any benefits. However, in developing countries, where the pollution control technology is not be as advanced or widespread as it is here in the United States, a dollar spent on pollution control will stretch much further and achieve far more significant reductions in overall pollution. Thus, the cost/benefit ratio favors significant pollution reduction in developing, not developed, countries. In addition to the simple cost/benefit analysis, many scientists predict the greatest increase of future greenhouse emissions will come from developing countries like China, Mexico, Brazil, and Korea. As much as 60 percent of global carbon emissions are expected to come from such countries in the next few decades, with China becoming the single- largest emitter in the near future. Since these countries are expected to produce the bulk of future greenhouse emissions, exempting them will not reduce net global emissions. Both cost-benefit analysis and common sense say that the most effective way to reduce net global pollution is to reduce emissions in the developing nations. While I presume many supporters of this resolution agree that under no circumstances should the United States be subjected to legally binding emissions limitations, I believe the resolution is somewhat unclear. As I read it, it says the United States will agree to legally binding emissions if ``the protocol or other agreements also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing country parties within the same compliance period.'' Unfortunately, I believe this condition is not sufficient. As many of you know, it has been interpreted by different people in different ways. Some read it to mean that the Senate will not approve a treaty that does not include identical emissions level and target date requirements. Others, however, have read the same language and determined that it means any treaty must have equal commitments when it comes to setting time tables but not emissions levels. Unfortunately, it is easy to set developing countries on a time table and allow then to continue to pollute in any amount they desire. The emissions levels can be easily set so that the developed countries have very stringent, and perhaps unattainable levels, while the developing countries have very lax, easily reached goals--all the while, all countries are operating within the same time table. The time table alone does not determine the amount of pollution emitted; the emission level is more important. Setting the developing countries to the same timetables without meaningful emissions limitations will not preclude them from emitting larger amounts of greenhouse gases. This approach, I believe, defeats the purpose of the treaty ratified by the Senate, which is to voluntarily reduce greenhouse-gas emissions on a global scale. The original intent was not to legally bind the annex I countries to set timetables and emissions levels while only requiring the developing countries to comply with parallel timetables but not the same emissions standards. Also of concern is the fact that the administration is basing its climate-change policy on questionable science. The science on climate change is very much an open inquiry into an as-yet-unconfirmed phenomenon over which the scientific community remains sharply divided. Discrepancies exist in the evidence now being considered. So, before the administration binds the United States legally to costly, and possibly unnecessary, standards and goals, shouldn't we allow for the science on this matter to first evolve and, in turn, allow for us to base our decision on facts? Finally, there is the question of why the United States would embark on a course of action that many scientists say would do little environmental good. A report released in January of this year, January 10, 1997, by the Congressional Research Service poses the question: ``Given the scientific uncertainties regarding the magnitude, timing, rate, and regional consequences of the potential climatic change, what are the appropriate policy responses?'' I believe the appropriate response is to wait for the science to evolve; not to leap into legally binding emission limits that, if developed, would not necessarily improve the environment and would cost American citizens billions of dollars. Confirming this approach, Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr. of Arizona State University issued a report entitled ``Global Warming: Messy Models, Decent Data, Pointless Policy.'' In it he states, ``Global warming is presented as a crisis that can be stopped or minimized with appropriate policy actions. However, the evidence suggests that realistic policies are likely to have minimal climatic impact. Recent research also suggests that a delay in implementing policy responses will have little effect on the efficacy of global warming mitigation strategies.'' He continues: ``It is absolutely imperative that the policies developed for the global warming issue be built on the best science.'' Mr. President, I could not agree more. This December in Kyoto, Japan, the administration will further commit itself to the convention; it will be offering protocols to that instrument that lack the necessary support of the scientific community. Because we do not know enough to support these terms and allow for the administration to exploit the ends to justify the means for climate- change policy, the responsibility to ensure that the United States is not legally committed to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions will be placed in the hands of the U.S. Senate. We must preserve the right to question the validity of these protocols. Congressional oversight of the negotiations is crucial and any agreement reached in Kyoto must be brought before us for advice and consent. Once the science on this issue has evolved, we will then be able to base our laws on the science and avoid the costly mistake of basing the science on the laws.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed an amendment I sponsored to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that requires incoming immigrants to be immunized before they enter the United States. The amendment makes public health sense. Between 800,000 and 1 million individuals emigrate from their home country to the United States every year. And, the Department of Health and Human Services has made immunization of the U.S. population against vaccine-preventable diseases one of its top health priorities. But before the passage of last year's Immigration Act, there was no Federal policy with regard to the immunization of foreign nationals seeking permanent residency in the United States. With passage of the Immigration Reform Act, we can be assured that incoming immigrants will be immunized against vaccine- preventable diseases. There are special circumstances, however, when requiring an immigrant to be immunized in his or her home country before traveling to the United States doesn't make sense. The law allows the Attorney General the authority to waive the immunization requirement whenever the requirement ``would not be medically appropriate'' or when such immunizations ``would be contrary to the alien's religious or moral convictions.'' So, the Attorney General has complete authority to waive the immunization requirement. Some House and Senate offices, however, including mine, have heard from representatives of the international adoption community about the difficulties this requirement has caused for such parents and their children. To address this issue, Senator McCain and I offer this amendment to instruct the Attorney General ``to exercise the waiver authority provided for in subsection (g)(2)(B) for any alien applying for an IR3 or IR4 category visa.'' That is, for any orphan in another country who is to be adopted by a U.S. citizen. I have heard from adoptive parents and agencies in Arizona about the unique difficulties the immunization requirement is creating for some adoptive parents and their babies and young children. Their unique concerns focus on a number of issues, including: Unavailable background Records: Children from orphanages, which comprise over 50 percent of international adoptions, often do not have health records on which to base recommendations for vaccinations. Immunocompromised children: According to medical professionals, many children who have lived in orphanages exhibit significant immune defects. These immunocompromised children should not receive certain immunizations. Requiring such immunizations could cause the child to acquire the very disease the immunization is supposed to prevent. The exact age of the child is unknown and, therefore, some children could be forced to receive age-inappropriate immunizations. The adoptive parents often have limited time and resources to travel to the adoptee's home country. Forcing the child to undergo as many as five immunizations at one time, in order to reduce the amount of time and money a parent must spend in the child's home country, will drive up the cost of the adoption. There is a danger that unsterile or reconstituted needles, or substandard immunizations, may be used to vaccinate children in some orphanages in some countries. It is also important to ensure that any immigrant who has received a waiver be immunized once he or she has arrived in the United States. The McCain/Kyl amendment requires the Attorney General and Secretaries of HHS and State to report back in 6 months on how to establish an enforcement program to ensure that immigrants who receive waivers be immunized once they arrive in the United States. The enforcement program would not apply to immunizations that would not be medically appropriate in the foreign country or the United States or would be contrary to the alien's religious or moral convictions. On July 22, 23 of my colleagues, including Senators Abraham, Kennedy, Allard, Ashcroft, Coats, Conrad, Craig, D'Amato, DeWine, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Frist, Grassley, Hutchinson, Inouye, Kohl, Landrieu, McCain, Moynihan, Robb, Gordon Smith, and Snowe joined me in sending a letter to Attorney General Reno urging her to generously use her authority to provide waivers from the immunization requirement for these babies and children awaiting adoption. I am pleased that the Senate has adopted this timely amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. This proposal to divide the ninth circuit is especially important to my State.

Mr. KYL. Sure.

Mr. KYL. That would be up to Senator Gregg. I am going to agree with you, so perhaps----

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KYL. I want to say, we discussed the allocation of judges before. The Senator is exactly correct. I totally agree with you there should be a fair allocation, meaning that it should be in rough proportion to the caseload, and the projected caseload, not just the existing caseload. Therefore, if that means that there should be a different division of the judges vis-a-vis the States in the new circuit, I would not only have no objection to that, but I would join the Senator from California in assuring that that is the case. This was not my proposal, as the Senator from California knows. But I would suspect that the proponents of this amendment would be very happy to ensure that that distribution of judges is made a part of the legislation. At least, I would work with the Senator from California to assure that that would be the case.

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. As I said, this provision in the bill to divide the ninth circuit is very important to the State of Arizona because Arizona is the second largest State in the existing ninth circuit, both in terms of population and caseload. It, California, and Nevada are all three very fast growing. And there is no question that the caseload will continue to grow at least in proportion to the population. Phoenix, AZ, is now the sixth largest city in the country. Arizona is, I believe, the fastest growing State in the country. So not only do we have a situation in which we are growing very rapidly, along with Nevada and California, but the proposed amendment would result in a division of the circuit which would affect my own State of Arizona. So I speak to that issue. Now, it is not my suggestion, Mr. President, that the circuit be divided. There is a division of opinion in Arizona on that that suggests that the bench and bar are split. I do not think there is a clear consensus in my State as to whether the circuit should be divided, but I think there is a pretty clear recognition that it will be. It will happen sooner or later. It is inevitable, as several of my colleagues have already pointed out here. There is no question, because of its size and other factors, the circuit is going to be divided one way or another. The question is how will it be divided? On that question I think we have to look at this question of size, population, growth, caseload growth, and so on. Because if, for example, you divided the circuit the way it calls for in the bill, the caseload division would be as follows: The circuit comprised of California and Nevada would have 63 percent of the cases, and the remainder of the circuit would have 37 percent of the cases. That is about a 2-to-1 division, showing just how big California is. Probably in terms of caseload, the sounder way to do it would be just to have California. It would still be about 60-40 in favor of California versus all of the rest of the States in the circuit. But I gather that the proponents of this have decided to accommodate States who have expressed a willingness, through their Senators, to be added to California or to remain with California, and that Nevada has done that, as a result of which, to accommodate Nevada, it has been put with California. Now, if Arizona were to be added to that circuit, as some people suggest--again, there is division of view on this--the caseload would be 73 percent for the Arizona, Nevada, California circuit; 27 percent for the rest of the circuit. Obviously, that is not a good division for the circuits. So I have had to consider it from both a perspective of my State and what makes sense how to approach this issue. It clearly does not make sense, from a caseload division, to divide the circuit in a way that would add the three fastest growing States--Arizona, Nevada and California--together. I think it is bad enough to add Nevada and California together, though I do not deny that Nevada has a right to be with California if they desire. But it will soon be unbalanced and soon be the largest circuit in the country. Mr. President, in the end, I conclude I will not oppose this proposal. I would like to add two comments to those that have been made by my colleagues. First, there has been a suggestion that this circuit would be gerrymandered. I do want to suggest that that is not true. It is not true politically. The division of Democrat and Republican nominees would be exactly the same with the new division as it would be under the existing circuit. So I do not think that anybody believes this is about gerrymandering in a political sense. The percentage of Democrats and Republicans would be the same. Moreover, it is not a geographical gerrymandering. It simply takes two of the States of the circuit and leaves the remaining circuit as it is. Again, I would prefer that Nevada remain with the rest of the circuit to have a more evenly balanced caseload. Nevada wants to go with California--fine. That creates the anomaly that Arizona is divided from the rest of the circuit. But in the day of air travel, I do not think that is a particularly difficult problem for us, particularly since the committee has seen fit to designate both Seattle and Phoenix administrative sites of the circuit. So you have both a northern and southern administrative site. I know in the existing ninth circuit, cases are argued in Phoenix, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and so on. Because of its size, you have to accommodate the travel needs of the parties, the litigants. So there is an accommodation to that. And it would exist in this new circuit as well. But at least the people in the new circuit would not have to travel to California. So it seems to me that, on balance, maybe the best of a difficult situation has been made. I should say, the best has been made of a difficult situation. That is how to make a division that results in a fairly even distribution of cases, No. 1, and that does not divide the State of California, which I objected to along with Senator Feinstein. So in the end, Mr. President, conceding that division is ultimately going to occur, it seems to me that this is a division that makes sense. Therefore I will not oppose it. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. That is right, minority counsel represents the Democratic members of the committee; majority counsel represents Republican members of the committee. In the past, they had dealt with the Justice Department together as counsel for the committee. On this occasion, the minority counsel, the Democratic counsel, made contact with the Justice Department, immediately after which the Justice Department position was announced as having been changed----

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could respond then to the Senator from Pennsylvania, he is absolutely correct. There is a second event which again calls into question the objectivity of the Justice Department and I think requires us to add a second element to this request for the appointment of a special counsel. On July 11, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois, who is a political appointee running the Office of Legislative Affairs, and who frankly is very unlikely to have access to the classified information, the sensitive information on which Chairman Thompson based his opening statement about the influence of Chinese money in American Government on, this individual, this Assistant Attorney General, sent a letter asserting that the chairman's statement did not represent the views of the executive branch. Now, this is important for the following reason. Recall that when Chairman Thompson began the Governmental Affairs hearings, he announced that the committee had sensitive information implicating the Chinese Government for its efforts to involve itself illegally and improperly in American political campaigns. Some people in the media and in the minority questioned whether Chairman Thompson could legitimately make that claim. His response could only be that it had been cleared with the FBI, of the Department of Justice, and the CIA. He could not go any further because information was classified and highly sensitive. So he was in effect defenseless, Mr. President, to further explain his position. But he had to rely upon people's reliance upon his statements. Then comes this letter from the Justice Department casting doubt on Chairman Thompson's assertions saying, no, they had not cleared the content of his statement. That is the Department of Justice, that is supposed to be engaged in an independent investigation of these matters, clearly undercutting the chairman of the committee.

Mr. KYL. I have to say to the Senator from Pennsylvania that I am not aware of all of the conversations that members of the Justice Department may have had with people regarding the position that they have taken. Publicly, there have been a couple of different points made: One, that it takes a long time to visit with all of these people. Well----

Mr. KYL. If I could respond to that direct point by the Senator from Pennsylvania. You and I know, all our colleagues know, how long it takes to get a letter cleared downtown. It takes a long time. A legislative liaison cannot quickly get a letter out without a lot of higher-ups signing off on it. So I have no doubt in my mind that this was not a rogue act of an Assistant Secretary, but it had to have been approved at high levels of the Justice Department.

Mr. KYL. Precisely. And that is confirmed.