Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a great American and Senator, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. The occasion for this tribute is Strom Thurmond's remarkable achievement of becoming the longest serving Member of Congress in history, surpassing the record held by Carl Hayden of Arizona. This historical milestone gives each of us an opportunity to publicly applaud Senator Thurmond, but it is not the reason for our praise today. The reason I am pleased and honored to pay tribute to Senator Thurmond is that he is a great man and patriot who has served his State and his country faithfully in times of war and in times of peace. Senator Thurmond has had a remarkable life. When I reflect on some of the positions he has held in his career, including: attorney, superintendent of education, State senator, judge, Governor, Army officer, Presidential candidate, and U.S. Senator, I marvel at the skill, determination and dedication that was required to achieve each of these goals. Most men would be satisfied with just one of these many careers. Not Strom Thurmond. He was on a mission to serve the American people. That mission kept pushing him to strive higher and farther in his lifetime of public service. I came to know Strom Thurmond through my work on the defense committee in the House of Representatives. I know Senator Thurmond is a very capable legislator in many issue areas. I now serve with him on the Judiciary Committee, for example, and can attest that he is a most capable attorney. I also know that the people of South Carolina are enormously proud of him for all the good work he has done for their fine State. From my perspective, there is one area in which I believe Senator Thurmond has stood out and has made the greatest contribution-- as an active member of the Armed Services Committee. Strom Thurmond deeply loves his country. This is apparent in even little things such as the American flag lapel pin he often wears. Or in vivid examples like volunteering for service in World War II when he was in his forties. Today, Senator Thurmond demonstrates his strong affection for America and the men and women in uniform by having the courage to take unpopular positions to protect the defense budget and to ensure adequate training and equipment for the Armed Forces. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee he has presided over tumultuous times in the military. The end of the cold war and the social reengineering of the military have made it a challenge to preserve military readiness. But, Senator Thurmond has tried. He deserves much of the credit for preventing our Armed Forces from becoming a hollow Army. As Adlai Stevenson once said, he did this ``Not [through] a short and frenzied outburst of emotion, but with the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.'' Upon his retirement, Carl Hayden said ``I have always dreamed of power and the good I could do.'' Strom Thurmond, I believe, has the same motivation. He has not wanted material things or glory, but has simply done the best he could to help those who needed help. Carl Hayden could not lose his longevity record to a finer man. I remember a recent visit to Senator Thurmond's office where I was greeted by an impressive gallery of presidential pictures, beginning with Franklin Roosevelt. He told me that these pictures are of Presidents with whom he has served. It was then that I absorbed the magnitude of the impact of the Thurmond legacy on history. Strom Thurmond has been involved in every significant event that touched Congress or the Presidency in the second half of the 20th century. Very few people can say that, Mr President. Strom Thurmond was a good soldier and good citizen. His high standard of allegiance has enriched our national consciousness and has sustained a sense of purpose and patriotism all across America. I believe history will remember him not for his age or longevity in the Senate, but for his contributions to improve the well-being of his beloved America.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Gen. George S. Patton once said, ``if everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.'' Mr. President, I have no doubt that this budget is going to pass. There appears to be a lot of sentiment on both sides of the aisle that the deal must be approved even though it is flawed in many respects. But, like General Patton, I hope each of us and every American will actually evaluate the budget agreement on its merits before deciding whether or not to go along. I, for one, have concluded that the deal-- on its merits--should not be supported, and there are several reasons why. First, consider the deficits that are projected under the budget agreement. The deficit this year is expected to total $67 billion. We are trying to get a zero deficit--to balance--by the year 2002. But under this budget, the deficit goes up, not down. It climbs 34 percent--to $90 billion next year--and then remains in that range for 2 more years. Only in the final 2 years of the 5-year plan--in 2001 and 2002--would the deficit drop dramatically. Think about that. We are at a $67 billion deficit now, and we are trying to get to balance in 5 years. This budget lets Congress and the President go on a spending binge for 3 years, and then requires us to eliminate a $90 billion deficit in just 2 years. It cannot be done. It is as if you decided to go on a diet and lose 20 pounds by the Fourth of July. But instead of losing the weight gradually, you decided to put on 10 more pounds and then started the diet in earnest on July 1. You would fail to achieve your goal. The same is the case regarding deficit reduction. If it is going to take 5 years to eliminate a $67 billion deficit, how can we possibly eliminate a $90 billion deficit in just 2 years? The answer is that we will not. Second, consider tax relief. Of course, the budget itself does not include a family tax credit, capital gains relief, relief from death taxes, on an education tax credit. It merely establishes the overall size of the tax cut that will be written later. But the amount of tax relief we will be able to provide is very small: a net total of $85 billion over 5 years--about 1 percent of the $8.6 trillion in tax revenue that will be collected over that time period. A tax cut of 1 percent. It is minuscule. It is going to be impossible to provide all of the tax cuts that we have promised within that small amount. Mr. President, the tax relief we promised to working families--to help small businesses create jobs and provide better wages--will total $188 billion alone. President Clinton's education credit will cost another $35 billion. And there are a variety of other tax cuts as well. What that means is that a single mother probably cannot count on a full $500-per-child tax credit. It probably will be something less, phased in over a period of time. And maybe only some parents will qualify. It means that small businesses, including those started by women and minorities, cannot count on the tax relief that would enable them to expand, hire new people, pay better wages, and do the things necessary to become more competitive. It certainly will not be significant enough to prolong the economic expansion, which is already reaching historic lengths. That means the economy will probably slow, and people would be hurt be recession. We can prevent that by providing the economy with the shot in the arm that it needs to keep on growing. But that will require a larger, more meaningful tax cut. Third, consider whether or not this budget preserves Medicare for our seniors today and for those who will count on it in the future. Instead of going bankrupt in 2 years, this budget lets Medicare go bankrupt in less than 10 years. We need to make sure Medicare is safe and solvent for the long haul, particularly when the first wave of the Baby Boom generations begins to retire in 2010. This budget does nothing to protect Medicare for the next generation. It merely delays insolvency, mainly by reducing provider reimbursements, which will either diminish the quality of care provided to today's generation of older Americans or drive more doctors and hospitals out of the Medicare Program altogether, leaving seniors with limited health-care choices. It shifts the costs of home health care from part A to part B--a gimmick that we roundly denounced when the President proposed it before. Fourth, consider whether or not this budget makes good on the President's pledge that ``the era of big government is over.'' It does not. In fact, there are 13 new mandatory and entitlement programs in this agreement. And their costs will explode early in the next century. Fifth, and this may be the most telling of all, to pass this budget agreement we will first have to waive the discretionary spending caps for fiscal year 1998 that were established by the Democrat Congress and the Democrat President in 1993. Outlays will actually exceed the statutory cap by about $7 billion. In other words, the Republican majority, which was sent to Washington to try to curb spending, will allow spending to grow even more than the free-spending Congress of the early 1990's. Mr. President, this budget will not produce the intended results. It merely postpones all of the tough decisions until a new President and a new Congress are elected early in the next century. It is, as Yogi Beara once said, deja vu all over again--a remake of the 1990 and 1993 budget deals that simply yielded more spending, bigger government, and more taxes. I intend to vote ``no.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Exactly.

Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if our colleague from West Virginia would simply permit me to offer an amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest that before we begin thinking about patting ourselves on the back for the budget agreement that was finalized last week, we consider the hard work ahead. The agreement is merely a broad outline--a blueprint--for the spending and tax bills yet to come. We still need to consider how it is supposed to be implemented before claiming any sort of victory. We need to consider, for example, whether it will actually lead to a balanced budget by the year 2002. Is it good for families? Will it ensure that the Medicare Program is protected for today's generation of retirees and for our children and grandchildren? Will it help the economy produce the jobs needed for those trying to get off welfare, or those entering the work force for the first time? Will it help more young people get a college education? Will it provide the resources needed to safeguard our country from immediate and future threats from abroad? Mr. President, as the broad outline of the budget agreement with the White House has been filtering out over the last 2 weeks, I could not help but think of the budget deal that was brokered by President Bush and congressional Democrats 7 years ago. Here is what President Bush said when he announced that agreement in a broadcast on October 2, 1990: It is the biggest deficit-reduction agreement ever; half a trillion dollars. It's the toughest deficit-reduction package ever, with new enforcement rules to make sure that what we fix now stays fixed. And it has the largest spending savings ever, more than $300 billion. Of course, the agreement produced no such thing. Looking back, it produced bigger deficits, not smaller deficits--221 billion dollars' worth of red ink in 1990, rising to $290 billion in 1993. Federal spending increased from $1.2 to $1.4 trillion--up nearly 17 percent in just 3 years. So the mere fact that there is an agreement with the President is not reason enough to believe that the problem has been solved. As Gen. George S. Patton once said, ``if everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.'' We need to look objectively at the details, and whether the plan is reflective of values that our constituents sent us here to uphold. Right now, people are not sure. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released on May 8 indicated that an overwhelming majority of Americans--roughly 8 in 10--do not believe the deal will actually result in a balanced budget by 2002. Obviously, we need to take a careful look at what is being proposed here before deciding whether or not to support it. Mr. President, let me quote some of the words President Clinton used on May 2 when he announced the latest budget agreement. I think they will show why people have reason to be skeptical. While suggesting that ``it will be the first balanced budget in three decades,'' the President went on to note that it would ``continue to increase our investments,'' ``expand coverage,'' ``restore cuts,'' ``extend new benefits,'' and ``increase'' spending, while ``moderating excessive cuts.'' My friends, we cannot balance the budget by increasing spending and funding a whole host of new programs and benefits. Let us be honest about that. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. As I recall, the goal in 1990, as it was again in 1997, was to devise a plan to balance the budget, while providing long-term Federal spending constraints and incentives for economic growth. I opposed the 1990 agreement, believing it was seriously flawed on all those counts, and I see similar problems looming in the latest agreement. Let me focus first on the issue of taxes. The deal with the Clinton White House is different from the 1990 plan in that it includes some very modest tax cuts. But because the amount of tax reductions President Clinton would agree to is so small--less than 2 percent of the revenue that the Federal Government expects to raise over the next 5 years--it remains to be seen whether there is any tax relief here worthy of the name. I know that some might ask why we even need a tax cut when the economy continues to grow at a relatively healthy clip. There are two reasons. First, think of families. A $500-per-child tax credit can make a world of difference to a mom and dad sitting around the kitchen table trying to find a way to pay for their daughter's education, to pay for summer camp or braces for the kids. What single mom could not use a $500-per-child credit to help make ends meet? Yes, the Federal Government could keep the money and try to provide some kind of aid to these families. But if families could keep more of their hard-earned money to do for themselves, we probably would not need government to do so many things. It seems to me that we ought to put our trust in families to do what is right by their own children. And unfortunately, it is not clear we can accommodate the full $500- per-child credit under this plan. What about tax relief for small businesses, including the new businesses started by women and minorities? After all, that is where most of the new jobs around the country are created. Provide a meaningful tax cut, and small businesses and family farms could expand, hire new people, pay better wages, and do the things necessary to become more competitive. Alternatively, Government can keep the taxes. But remember, it then turns around and provides a whole host of subsidies to businesses because they do not have the resources to do for themselves. It is an endless cycle. When people are not left with enough to care for themselves, the Government tries to do more. When it does more, it taxes more, and people are left with even less. It has to stop somewhere. Americans need some relief. Mr. President, it is also important to understand how important a healthy and growing economy is to balancing the budget. We just received word from the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] that this year's deficit is expected to decline to $70 billion. That is $55 billion less than President Clinton's budget assumed as recently as February. And it is largely the result of two things: robust economic growth during the last few months, and Congress finally beginning to restrain spending growth during the last 2\1/2\ years. Limiting spending just takes some discipline, but how can tax policy help the economy to grow and prosper? It may come as a surprise to some, but lower tax rates not only help make people better off, but can produce more tax revenue for the Treasury as well. Just think what has happened during the last few months. The growing economy helped reduce the deficit $55 billion just since the President's February projections. CBO estimates that economic growth will produce an extra $45 billion a year for the next few years. So it is important to sustain that growth into the future. The economy grows like any prudent business enterprise grows. It is like a weekend sale at the Target store. When prices are slashed, people buy more goods, and the increased volume of sales more than makes up for the price reduction. The converse is also true--higher prices cause people to shop elsewhere. Higher taxes cause people to shelter income, or make less, to avoid paying more taxes. Mr. President, based upon what we know about the current agreement, it does not seem to me that we will be able to achieve either of these goals: providing families and small businesses with tax relief, or keeping the economy growing at a healthy rate. But what about spending? Does it do anything to constrain Federal spending--since it was excessive spending that caused the 1990 budget agreement to fail? Well, here is how domestic spending totes up compared to the levels Congress approved a year ago in the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution. These are figures developed by our colleague, Senator Phil Gramm, a member of the Budget Committee. And I will note that the Budget Committee will not begin marking up the budget resolution until this afternoon, so these numbers may change. But they suggest an alarming trend in any event. According to Senator Gramm's figures, domestic spending in this deal will amount to $193 billion more over 5 years than we were willing to approve just 1 year ago. It is $79 billion more than President Clinton himself asked for just a year ago, and $5 billion more than he asked for in February. Mr. President, the budget agreement with the White House would provide an additional $16 billion for new Government-provided health insurance, and another $18 billion to repeal parts of welfare reform and expand the Food Stamp Program. It puts more money into education, but because of the way this is done, the extra resources are likely to be eaten up by tuition increases. Or they will simply help those who had the means to go to college anyway. Medicare savings in the plan come largely from reductions in provider reimbursements, which either will diminish the quality of care provided to older Americans or drive more doctors and hospitals out of the Medicare Program altogether, leaving seniors with limited health-care choices. Medicare solvency occurs as a result of shifting the costs of home health care from part A to part B--a gimmick that we roundly denounced when the President proposed it before. The Medicare savings are enough to forestall the bankruptcy of the program for a few years, but they are not enough to ensure that Medicare remains safe and sound to take care of Americans in the baby- boom generation who will begin retiring within the next decade. The Medicare features of this agreement certainly will not protect the system for young people who are just entering the work force today. Defense spending in this agreement is also insufficient to protect future generations. We have cashed in on the much-heralded peace dividend so many times that our military service chiefs have been warning about increased risks due to budget cuts. I know that many believe this is a time when the United States can cut back its defense budget. But history teaches us the opposite. We have always enjoyed a period of calm before a storm. With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that is occurring today, and the emergence of movements hostile to the West, we do not have the luxury of waiting until after we have been threatened to invest in our military. We must remain ready and fully capable, both to deter and to defeat any aggression against American citizens. Mr. President, it is instructive that the first piece of legislation on the Senate floor after this deal was struck was the supplemental appropriations bill, which will add $6.6 billion to the deficit over the next few years. In other words, we have already added to the deficit before the ink on the budget agreement is even dry. We had the chance to change that with the amendment that Senator Gramm offered--an amendment which I supported. But it did not pass, and so for all practical purposes the budget agreement will have to be modified to account for this extra spending. At least that part of it will need to be fixed. I think we need to learn a lot more about the agreement this week before signing off on it. Unless parts of it can be modified down the line as the House and Senate begin writing the tax and spending bills to implement it, I believe it will not lead to balance. It will certainly not lead to balance after the $6.6 billion that was added to the deficit by the supplemental spending bill. Mr. President, it may even usher in a bigger, more powerful Federal Government, as happened in 1990. And that is not what many of us came here to do. We can compromise on details without compromising our principles. We should never be afraid to take legitimate differences to the American people when we are unable to resolve them here. I ask that a column by Senator Phil Gramm, which includes some additional information about the budget agreement, be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Washington Post, May 9, 1997] Deceptive Budget Deal (By Phil Gramm) After two years of partisan confrontation on the budget, the president and Congress have reached a bipartisan deal that appears to be all things to all people. The president gets more social spending, Republicans get a tax cut, and the American people get a balanced budget. If it all seems too good to be true, that's because it is. Because the budgeting arms of both the administration and Congress assumed--before the budget debate even started--that the strong economy we now enjoy would produce sustained growth beyond the year 2002, the amount of deficit reduction required to achieve a balanced budget immediately declined from $642 billion over the next five years to $330 billion. Then it got even better. At the very moment of impasse in the budget negotiations, the Congressional Budget Office discovered that even its previous estimates of an improving economy understated the revenue windfall expected in the next five years and predicted that windfall alone would lower the deficit another $225 billion. Negotiators then rolled up their sleeves and assumed $15 billion of additional savings from lower consumer prices and $77 billion in additional savings from the even stronger economic growth that would be generated by balancing the budget. The net result is that before a single change in public policy became part of the budget compromise, deficits of $317 billion--96 percent of the total deficit--had simply been assumed away. Only $14 billion, or 4 percent of deficit reduction in the budget compromise, comes from actually changing policy. The most distinctive feature of the budget compromise is the size of domestic discretionary spending increases. While it is fashionable for Republicans to claim that this budget deal achieves the goals of the Contract With America, in reality it spends $216 billion more on domestic discretionary programs than the contract contained. The compromise increases domestic discretionary spending by $193 billion above the 1997 budget resolution and by $79 billion above President Clinton's actual budget request for 1997. In fact, if you look at the president's 1998 budget as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, the budget deal actually gives the president $5 billion more in discretionary spending than his own budget would have provided. The most permanent feature of the bipartisan budget compromise is an increase in domestic spending on social programs, which the president has rightly compared to the explosion of social spending that occurred in the 1960's. In addition to these increases in discretionary spending, the budget compromise contains new entitlement benefits in Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and SSI, and it overturns part of the one major reform of the 104th Congress: It reestablishes welfare benefits for legal aliens. The budget compromise proudly trumpets $115 billion of savings in medicare, but by committing to accept the president's plan to simply cut reimbursement for doctors and hospitals, Congress buys into a policy that has been implemented over and over again in the past 30 years without achieving substantial savings. Like other forms of price controls, reducing reimbursement for physicians and hospitals has historically been circumvented as the recipients have invented ways to work around the limitations. In addition, the compromise requires that the fastest growing part of Medicare, home health care, be taken out of the Medicare trust fund and financed from general revenues. Perhaps the most perverse aspect of the compromise is that this budget will trample an emerging bipartisan commitment to real Medicare reform. This budget agreement virtually guarantees that five years from now Medicare will be in much worse shape than it is today. Moreover, virtually every penny of the $115 billion claimed from Medicare savings will be spent on increases in social programs and new entitlement benefits. That brings us to my party's favorite part of the deal, the much-discussed $85 billion tax cut. The cut is largely funded by odds-and-ends measures, the largest of which is at least $25 billion of revenues assumed to be derived from auctioning off broadcast and non-broadcast spectrum--the right to use public airways for everything from broadcasting the 6 o'clock news to setting up a cellular phone system. Last year Congress assumed a limited spectrum auction of $2.9 billion as an offset to new spending. When actually auctioned, the spectrum brought in just $13.6 million, or roughly $1 for every $200 that Congress had assumed would be raised. Given our experience of last year, it is highly unlikely that anything like $25 billion will be raised from spectrum auction unless television stations are forced to buy spectrum to broadcast their new digital signals, something the Federal Communication Commission, the White House and Congress have opposed. The budget agreement claims a net reduction in taxes of $85 billion. Some $5 billion of that tax cut will be lost to the public because the assumed reductions in the consumer price index will raise income taxes by $5 billion. Of the remaining $80 billion, the Clinton administration's education tax credit will absorb roughly $35 billion, leaving Republicans some $45 billion in net tax cuts to fund their tax-cut priorities. Unfortunately, the full Republican tax package costs $188 billion. Republicans on the House and Senate tax-writing committees now will be forced to try to stretch a net tax cut of $45 billion to cover a $500-per-child tax credit that costs $105 billion, capital gains relief that costs $32 billion, estate and death tax relief that cost $18 billion and individual retirement account expansion that costs $32 billion. Even if $50 billion of offsetting tax increases can be found, it is a certainty that the individual tax credit will be dramatically curtailed, probably by ensuring that many middle- and upper-middle-income working families don't get any child tax credit. Capital gains and estate tax relief will be similarly truncated. In the end, despite all the talk of achieving a major tax cut, it is hard to see a substantial impact in a $7 trillion economy being created by a $45 billion tax cut. Obviously, in a budget deal such as this, the logical question is: ``Is it better than nothing?'' And, as is usually the case, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But in the final analysis, two factors ultimately make this budget agreement worse than no agreement. The first is the false perception it creates that the deficit problem has been fixed. This notion already has given rise to the largest increase in social spending since the '60s in this budget agreement and is likely to further open the floodgates as Congress convinces itself and the American public that the deficit is behind us. Second, by claiming to have solved the Medicare problem for 10 years, we will take the pressure off the president and Congress to reform Medicare even though the trust fund is careening toward bankruptcy, and Medicare will produce a $1.6 trillion drain on the federal Treasury over the next 10 years. Historically, America has looked to its two great political parties to contest over principles and new ideas so that the highest principles and best ideas could become the governing consensus for the country. But divided government often produces massive pressure for bipartisanship, and the current budget deal is an example of how bipartisanship sometimes can manifest itself not in compromise policy but in a decision to join together to mislead the public. The opposite of gridlock is not necessarily efficiency, it is sometimes deception.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing to receive testimony concerning several pending measures. The measures are: S. 439, the Federal Power Act Amendment Act of 1997, H.R. 651 and H.R. 652, bills to extend the deadlines for hydroelectric projects in the State of Washington, S. 725, the Collbran Project Unit Conveyance Act, S. 736, the Carlsbad Irrigation Project Acquired Land Transfer Act, S. 744, to authorize the construction of the Fall River Water Users District Rural Water System and authorize financial assistance to the Fall River Water Users District, a nonprofit corporation, in the planning and construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes, and S. 538, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain facilities of the Minidoka project to the Burley Irrigation District, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 10 in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building starting at 9:30 a.m. Persons interested in testifying or submitting material for the hearing record should contact the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510, attn: Shawn Taylor (S. 439, H.R. 651 and 652) at 202-224-7875 or Betty Nevitt (S. 725, S. 736, S. 744, and S. 538) at 202-224-0765.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Ron Fitzsimmons' admission is really not all that surprising. Even at the time of the debate in the Senate last year, the preponderance of evidence suggested that the procedure was more common than some of its defenders wanted the public and Congress to believe. Consider, for example, that Dr. Martin Haskell, who authored a paper on the subject for the National Abortion Federation, said in a 1993 interview with American Medical News, ``in my particular case, probably 20 percent--of the instances of this procedure--are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective.'' He suggested at the time that an estimate of about 4,000 partial-birth abortions a year was probably accurate. Another doctor, Dr. James McMahon, who acknowledged that he performed at least 2,000 of the procedures, told American Medical News before he died that he used the method to perform elective abortions up to 26 weeks and nonelective abortions up to 40 weeks. His definition of ``non-elective'' was expansive, including ``depression'' as a maternal indication for the procedure. More than half of the partial-birth abortions he performed were on healthy babies. The Record of Bergen County, NJ published an investigative report on the issue last year and reported that in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed annually, far more than the 450 to 500 such abortions that the National Abortion Federation said were occurring across the entire country. According to the Record, doctors it interviewed said that only a ``minuscule'' number of these abortions are performed for medical reasons. Mr. President, evidence overwhelmingly indicates that partial-birth abortions are performed far more often than President Clinton suggested when he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act last year. But what about his comments about the need to protect the life and health of the mother? Here is what the former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. C. Everett Koop--a man who President Clinton singled out for praise as someone trying ``to bring some sanity into the health policy of this country''--had to say on the subject. He said that ``partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.'' That is consistent with testimony that the Judiciary Committee received in late 1995 from other medical experts. Dr. Nancy Romer, a practicing ob-gyn from Ohio, testified that in her 13 years of experience, she never felt compelled to recommend this procedure to save a woman's life. ``In fact,'' she said, ``if a woman has a serious, life threatening, medical condition this procedure has a significant disadvantage in that it takes three days.'' Even Dr. Warren Hern, the author of the Nation's most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures, is quoted in the November 20, 1995 edition of American Medical News as saying that he would ``dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'' He called it ``potentially dangerous'' to a woman to turn a fetus to a breech position, as occurs during a partial-birth abortion. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which, many will recall, supported the President's veto last year, was quoted by columnist Charles Krauthammer on March 14 as conceding that there are ``no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life of the mother and preserve the health of the woman.'' I would point out that, in the event that a doctor determined that a partial-birth abortion was the only procedure available to save a woman's life, he should or could proceed since the legislation includes a life-of-the-mother exception. Mr. President, I know that there are several other concerns that have been expressed about the legislation. For example, some have questioned its constitutionality, and that is a legitimate question. Of course, we all can speculate about how the U.S. Supreme Court might rule on the matter. But as Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Tribe noted in a November 6, 1995 letter to Senator Boxer, there are various reasons ``why one cannot predict with confidence how the Supreme Court as currently composed would rule if confronted with [the bill].'' He noted that the Court has not had any such law before it. And he noted that ``although the Court did grapple in 1986 with the question of a State's power to put the health and survival of a viable fetus above the medical needs of the mother, it has never directly addressed a law quite like [the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act].'' Mr. President, neither Roe versus Wade nor any subsequent Supreme Court case has ever held that taking the life of a child during the birth process is a constitutionally protected practice. In fact, the Court specifically noted in Roe that a Texas statute that--making killing a child during the birth process a felony--had not been challenged. That portion of the law is still on the books in Texas today. Remember what we are talking about here: ``an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' That is the definition of a partial-birth abortion in the pending legislation. So we are talking about a child whose body, save for his or her head, has been delivered from the mother--that is, only the head remains inside. No matter what legal issues are involved, I hope no one will forget that we are talking about a live child who is already in the birth canal and indeed has been partially delivered. Even if the Court did somehow find that a partially delivered child is not constitutionally protected, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act could still be upheld under Roe and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania versus Casey. Under both Roe and Casey, the Government may prohibit abortion after viability, except when necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, medical experts, including the former Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, have said that this procedure is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility. Others have even questioned its safety, calling it ``potentially dangerous.'' By contrast, in cases prior to viability, Casey allows regulation of abortion that is reasonably related to a legitimate State interest, unless the regulation places an ``undue burden'' on a woman's right to choose an abortion. But as I just indicated, the pending bill would only ban one type of procedure, involving the partial delivery of a child before it is killed. Other procedures would still be available if a woman's health were threatened. And the bill would allow a doctor to proceed with a partial-birth abortion if the woman's life were threatened. Mr. President, Notre Dame's Professor of Constitutional Law, Douglas W. Kmiec, made the point in testimony before the Judiciary Committee on November 17, 1995, that ``even in Roe the Court explicitly rejected the argument that a woman `is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses' [410 U.S. at 153].'' Professor Kmiec went on to note that under Casey, there is an elementary difference between banning all abortions and banning one procedure that medical testimony indicates is not at all necessary to save a mother's life. Mr. President, although I believe the law would be upheld by the Court, I will concede that no one can say with certainty how the Supreme Court will rule until it has ruled. Until then, I suggest that we not use that as an excuse to avoid doing what we believe is right. Mr. President, the other issue I want to address briefly before closing involves the question of when this procedure is performed. Some people, suggesting a way to compromise on the legislation, are now focusing on the third trimester, proposing that limitations on the procedure be restricted to that time period. Of course, all of the evidence suggests that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions-- some 90 percent--occur during the second trimester of pregnancy. And as Ron Fitzsimmons put it, they are performed for the most part on healthy women and healthy babies. A third-trimester partial-birth abortion ban would be a hollow gesture at best, and at worst, a cynical hoax on an American public that is outraged at the barbarity of this procedure. It seems to me that a third-trimester limitation is merely a way for defenders of the status quo to make it appear that they are doing something to end this horrifying procedure without doing anything at all. Mr. President, the spotlight is on this body. The facts are on the table. Let us do what is right and put a stop to what our colleague, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has appropriately characterized as infanticide. Let us pass this bill. Exhibit I [From the New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997] An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About Procedure (By David Stout) Washington.--A prominent member of the abortion rights movement said today that he lied in earlier statements when he said a controversial form of late-term abortion is rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies. He now says the procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses. Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said he intentionally misled in previous remarks about the procedure, called intact dilation and evacuation by those who believe it should remain legal and ``partial-birth abortion'' by those who believe it should be outlawed, because he feared that the truth would damage the cause of abortion rights. But he is now convinced, he said, that the issue of whether the procedure remains legal, like the overall debate about abortion, must be based on the truth. In an article in American Medical News, to be published March 3, and an interview today, Mr. Fitzsimmons recalled the night in November 1995, when he appeared on ``Nightline'' on ABC and ``lied through my teeth'' when he said the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged. ``It made me physically ill,'' Mr. Fitzsimmons said in an interview. ``I told my wife the next day, `I can't do this again.' '' Mr. Fitzsimmons said that after that interview he stayed on the sidelines of the debate for a while, but with growing unease. As much as he disagreed with the National Right to Life Committee and others who oppose abortion under any circumstances, he said he knew they were accurate when they said the procedure was common. In the procedure, a fetus is partly extracted from the birth canal, feel first, and the brain is then suctioned out. Last fall, Congress failed to override a Presidential veto of a law that would have banned the procedure, which abortion opponents insist borders on infanticide and some abortion rights advocates also believe should be outlawed as particularly gruesome. Polls have shown that such a ban has popular support. Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, has suggested a compromise that would prohibit all third- trimester abortions, except in cases involving the ``life of the mother and severe impairment of her health.'' The Right to Life Committee and its allies have complained repeatedly that abortion-rights supporters have misled politicians, journalists and the general public about the frequency and the usual circumstances of the procedure. ``The abortion lobby manufactures disinformation,'' Douglas Johnson, the committee's legislative director, said today. He said Mr. Fitzsimmon's account would clarify the debate on this procedure, which is expected to be renewed in Congress. Mr. Fitzsimmons predicted today that the controversial procedure would be considered by the courts no matter what lawmakers decide. Last April, President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have outlawed the controversial procedure. There were enough opponents in the House to override his veto but not in the Senate. In explaining the veto, Mr. Clinton echoed the argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons and his colleagues. ``There are a few hundred women every year who have personally agonizing situations where their children are born or are about to be born with terrible deformities, which will cause them to die either just before, during or just after childbirth,'' the President said. ``And these women, among other things, cannot preserve the ability to have further children unless the enormity--the enormous size of the baby's head--is reduced before being extracted from their bodies.'' A spokeswoman for Mr. Clinton said tonight that the White House knew nothing of Mr. Fitzsimmons's announcement and would not comment further. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Mr. Fitzsimmons said. ``The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else,'' he said in the article in the Medical News, an American Medical Association publication. Mr. Fitzsimmons, whose Alexandria, Va., coalition represents about 200 independently owned clinics, said coalition members were being notified of his announcement. One of the facts of abortion, he said, is that women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. ``It is a form of killing,'' he said. ``You're ending a life.'' And while he said that troubled him, Mr. Fitzsimmons said he continues to support this procedure and abortion rights in general.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, when President Clinton vetoed the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act a year ago, he said there are ``rare and tragic situations that can occur in a woman's pregnancy in which, in a doctor's medical judgment, the use of this procedure may be necessary to save a woman's life or to protect her against serious injury to her health.'' I do not doubt that the President made that statement about the rarity of the procedure and its utility, relying in good faith on information provided at the time by certain organizations involved in this debate. We now know, however, that the information given the President was of questionable value, if not downright inaccurate. A number of pro-abortion organizations, for example, had suggested that partial-birth abortions totaled only about 500 a year and that they were limited to very serious and tragic cases where there was no alternative. This is how the Planned Parenthood Federation of America characterized partial-birth abortion in a November 1, 1995, news release: ``The procedure, dilation and extraction (D&X), is extremely rare and done only in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality.'' Let me quote that again, done only--only--in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality. The organization repeated this several times. In a press release issued on March 26, 1996, Planned Parenthood said, ``The truth is that the D&X procedure is only used when the woman's life or health is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal anomaly.'' The statement is absolute: the procedure is only used under these conditions, said the organization. In fairness, I will point out that Planned Parenthood was not the only group to make such sweeping statements at that time. Within the last few months, however, the story has started to unravel. On February 26, the New York Times reported that Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he ``lied in earlier statements when he said [partial-birth abortion] is rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies.'' According to the Times, ``He now says the procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses.'' Mr. Fitzsimmons told American Medical News the same thing--that is, the vast majority of these abortions are performed in the 20-plus week range on healthy fetuses and healthy mothers. He said, ``The abortion rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else.'' I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the New York Times and the American Medical News articles be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Article II of the Constitution gave the President and the Senate equal treaty making powers, stating that the President ``shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.'' Substantive changes to treaties also require the advice and consent of the Senate. John Jay made one of the most persuasive arguments about this point, noting that, ``of course, treaties could be amended, but let us not forget that treaties are made not by only one of the contracting parties, but by both, and consequently that as the consent of both was essential to their formation at first, so must it ever afterwards be to alter . . . them.'' Condition 9 of the resolution of ratification for the CFE Flank Agreement protects the Senate's constitutional role by requiring that any agreement to multilateralize the 1972 ABM Treaty be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, since any such agreement would substantively alter the rights and obligations of the United States and others under the treaty. This condition is not the first expression of the Senate's view on this issue, and would merely be the latest addition to a clear legislative history. Section 232 of the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995 clearly states that any agreement that substantively modifies the ABM treaty must be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization Act built on the language in the 1995 Authorization Act stating that, ``the accord on ABM Treaty succession, tentatively agreed to by the administration would constitute a substantive change to the ABM Treaty, which may only be entered into pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitution.'' The conversion of the ABM Treaty from a bilateral to a multilateral agreement represents a substantive modification of the treaty. First of all, multilateralization changes the agreement by altering the definition of territory, which is at the heart of the treaty. Article I of the 1972 ABM Treaty states, ``Each Party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems for a defense of the territory of its country.'' Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding on Succession to the ABM Treaty, territory would now be defined as the ``combined national territories of the U.S.S.R. Successor States that have become Parties to the Treaty.'' The term periphery would also be changed to mean the combined periphery of all the former Soviet states party to the treaty. Thus, instead of the treaty applying to the territory of a single nation, in the case of the former Soviet Union, it would apply to a number of nations. Multilateralization would also be a substantive change since it would create a system of unequal rights under the treaty, wherein the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union would be treated as second class citizens. The ABM Treaty that the Senate agreed to 25 years ago created identical rights and obligations for each party. Under the memorandum of Uunderstanding on succession, however, only two of the potential parties to the treaty--the United States and Russia-- would be permitted to field an ABM system. Other nations, while responsible for regulating ABM activities on their territory, would not be allowed to deploy such a system. For example, Ukraine could locate new early warning radars on the periphery of its territory, oriented outward, but would not be permitted to protect its capital with an ABM system. The multilateralization of the ABM Treaty also undermines U.S. efforts to promote the independence of the former Soviet republics. The memorandum of understanding on succession states that the term capital of the U.S.S.R. will continue to mean the city of Moscow. This designation, in addition to granting the New Independent States inferior rights under the treaty, and defining territory and periphery as the combined total of the former Soviet states sends the wrong message. It tells the New Independent States that they remain linked to Russia, without equal rights. Finally, multilateralization represents a substantive change to the agreement since it would diminish U.S. rights and influence under the treaty. New parties will surely be given a seat at the Standing Consultative Commission [SCC], which interprets, amends, and administers the ABM treaty. Under the 1972 ABM Treaty, the United States could take actions through bilateral agreements with the Soviet Union. By expanding the number of nations in the treaty, it will now be necessary to reach multilateral consensus to interpret or amend the treaty. One country, such as Belarus, could effectively block United States actions or demand concessions, even if Russia and the other parties to the treaty agreed with the United States. Negotiating changes or common interpretations of treaty obligations with Russia is a difficult task. Adding up to 11 new parties to the treaty will make this process much more difficult. In addition to the reasons I have cited as to why multilateralization would substantively modify the ABM Treaty, and the legislative history compelling the administration to submit the agreement to the Senate for advice and consent, the way the Senate has considered succession agreements for the various arms control treaties concluded between the United States and the Soviet Union further supports the case for Senate consideration of any ABM successorship document. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the only arms control treaty which was not re-submitted to the Senate for advice and consent due to changes in countries covered, was the INF Treaty. This treaty carried a negative obligation, namely not to possess intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Since no treaty terms were altered and U.S. rights and obligations remained unchanged, advice and consent was not necessary. The resolution of ratification for the START I Treaty was accompanied by a separate protocol multilateralizing the treaty, which was submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. This same protocol determined successorship questions for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT]. Finally, the Senate specifically considered the question of multilateralization of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe [CFE] treaty under condition #5 of its resolution of ratification. As I have discussed today, the addition of parties to the ABM Treaty clearly represents a substantive modification of the treaty. The Defense Authorization Acts passed by the Senate in 1995 and 1997, and the history of how this body has considered succession agreements to previous arms control accords with the Soviet Union strongly support the submission of any ABM multilateralization agreement to the Senate. Voting to require the administration to submit the ABM multilateralization agreement for advice and consent, simply protects the Senate's constitutional role in treaty making. Reasonable people may differ over the merits of the ABM Treaty or the addition of one or more countries to the agreement, but I believe all my colleagues can agree that before this new treaty is implemented, the Senate needs to fulfill its constitutional duty by considering whether to give its advice and consent to this new agreement.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Texas for yielding and for presenting his amendment. I fully support the Gramm amendment. I hope that shortly our colleagues will support it as well. Let me say at the outset that I think we all support the disaster relief that is provided in the underlying legislation, whether we agree with the specific level or not. Certainly my heart goes out to the families that have lost their homes and their businesses and their schools and who have suffered because of these recent floods and snows. We have all seen the devastation on the television and read about it in the newspapers. I think all of us support what we can do about that. I also think that we owe it to the rest of the people in the United States not only to put the full resources of Government into the States in which these disasters occur but also to ensure that the taxpayers of the United States, in effect, don't have to pay twice. We should ensure that the money that is spent in the States where these disasters have occurred is counted fully in our budget process. It is, I think, interesting that in the very week that the budget agreement was announced, we have before us a piece of legislation that would add to the budget deficit in violation of that agreement. I think we owe it to the American people to make sure that in solving one serious problem, the disaster problem, we don't make another problem worse. We can and we should find some way to meet our obligations without just adding to the budget deficit. As I said, it was just 6 days ago that the White House announced the budget agreement that would result in a balanced budget by the year 2002. The ink is not even dry on that agreement--in fact, parts of it have not even been written--yet the very first piece of legislation to come to the Senate floor after the agreement was announced is a bill to add $6.6 billion to the Federal budget deficit over the next few years. It seems to me, if people are going to have any confidence in the budget agreement that was struck with the White House, and we expect them to believe what we say about balancing the budget, that we cannot continue this kind of business as usual. We have to begin exercising some discipline. That means that this is a good time to start by saying that what we spend will be counted in our budget in order to know whether we are in balance. It would be one thing if there were no other way to get the aid to the flood victims except to borrow. But it is quite another thing when we ignore other options in order to keep spending on other programs. What would it take to pay for this emergency spending bill? Well, it takes only two things. In the first year, it is less than 2 cents on every dollar in spending reductions in other programs to ensure that the money that needs to flow immediately in the remainder of this fiscal year can flow. And for the remainder of the money to be spent, it would merely have to count in our budget so that we can know whether we are in balance. That may mean growth in some other areas might have to be restrained. We know that these kinds of disasters have always occurred and will continue to occur because they are natural disasters, and yet we do not plan for them. We spend every nickel that we have, knowing that if there is an emergency, we can appropriate additional funds. And if the past is any guide, we will simply add that onto the deficit rather than include it in the budget that has to be balanced. The Appropriations Committee acknowledged in its own report that the number of major disaster declarations in the 1992 to 1996 period has increased 54 percent. In other words, we had ample warning that something would occur somewhere. Had we prepared for the need for disaster assistance last fall instead of using every extra dollar to meet President Clinton's demands for new spending, we would already have been able to respond to the emergency in the Midwest and elsewhere around the country. We would not need to be here today debating a bill to spend additional money. But by ignoring potential disasters last fall, we merely paved the way for adding to the deficit now when the need for relief takes precedence over budget concerns. I know some will say that this bill is already offset by reductions in budget authority. Frankly, that is Washington speak. The Congressional Budget Office tells us this measure is going to add nearly $1 billion to the deficit this year and about $6.6 billion over the next several years. It is true that budget authority may be offset but outlays are not. And outlays are what count.

Mr. KYL. Let me explain to those who may be watching and do not appreciate the difference between budget outlays and budget authority what we are talking about here. Congress frequently passes laws granting authority to spend amounts of money on Government programs, but until that authority is backed up by appropriations, it does not mean anything. Granted, you have to have the authority, but you also have to have the money. When we say that we are going to offset this disaster relief by rescinding certain budget authority, that authority may never be funded. It frequently is not funded, and as a result it is not really offsetting actual expenditures or money that is going to be spent. It is merely offsetting authority that may or may not ever be funded and money that may or may not ever be spent. Senator Gramm has done a good job of analogizing the two things that are necessary to writing a check. You need a check or a checkbook of checks and you also need some money in the bank. The budget authority is like your checkbook, but unless you have the money in the bank, the checkbook does not do you a whole lot of good. So you tear up a bunch of checks and throw them in the wastebasket and say we have offset the spending. You have not really done that. All you have done is removed that check, not the money in the bank. We need to offset the spending in this disaster relief bill, which we support, with actual money so that we do not end up spending both and thereby break the budget deal. I will conclude at this point. Again, we just agreed to a budget deal that allegedly will result in a balanced budget in 5 years. Unless the Gramm amendment passes, that budget deal will be broken before it is ever signed, before we even vote on it. It will be broken this week when we pass this supplemental appropriations without offsetting future spending in the next 5 years. I support the Gramm amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, everyone agrees that ridding the world of chemical weapons is a noble and worthy goal to pursue. These are weapons that no nation should have in its stockpile--and that includes the United States. By law, the U.S. stockpile will be destroyed whether or not the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] is ever ratified by the Senate. Opponents of the Convention support that action. Notwithstanding agreement on the goals of the CWC, we do not believe that this treaty can ever achieve the goals. It will not accomplish its objective of being global, verifiable, and effective ban on these weapons. Moreover, because of deficiencies in the treaty--which, by its terms, adopting parties must ratify wholesale without amendment--we believe the United States is better off without the CWC than with it. As a result, we could not support ratification absent certain certifications by the President prior to deposit of our instrument of ratification. Faced with the fact that the treaty is largely unverifiable, some ratification supporters argue that no treaty is 100 percent verifiable, and that, while not perfect, the CWC is better than nothing, especially since chemical weapons are so morally objectionable. Proponents further assert that the CWC is needed because it establishes an international norm that stigmatizes these weapons; that the CWC will bring us some intelligence we do not now have regarding the possession and manufacture of these weapons; and that it will provide trade benefits to U.S. chemical companies. Finally, they argue that we need to be a party to the treaty to protect our interests as details of implementation are worked out by the various parties. For the sake of argument, even assuming that these relatively modest benefits claimed for the treaty would in fact materialize, we believe these claimed benefits do not outweigh the costs. Opponents are convinced that the costs of ratifying the CWC outweigh the advanced benefits in several important respects, including the following: First, it would create a United Nations-style bureaucracy, 25 percent of the cost of which must be paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Second, it would put American businesses under a financially burdensome, security-compromising, and quite possibly unconstitutional inspection regime. Third, it would exacerbate the chemical threat we face by undermining existing multilateral trade restrictions, sanctions, and embargoes the United States has placed on rogue countries like Iran and Cuba. Fourth, it would require information sharing that signatory nations, if so inclined, could use to advance their chemical weapons programs. Fifth, the convention would give the Nation with the largest CW stockpile--Russia--an excuse to abrogate the Bilateral Destruction Agreement [BDA] it entered into with the United States to destroy chemical weapons. And this is not hypothetical speculation--there are growing indications Russia does not intend to comply with the BDA, which is much more restrictive than the CWC. Sixth, the prospect of ratification would create--there are already signs that it is creating--a false sense of security that encourages the United States to let its guard down on defending against the use of chemical weapons against American troops. Seventh, it degrades the value of treaties and moral statements because all nations understand it is unenforceable. The CWC represents hope over reality. It makes people feel good to say they have done something about a class of weapons we all abhor. But signing this piece of paper is not going to solve the problem--and that's the problem. Hard problems can't be wished away with naive hopes and tough talk in the form of yet another international agreement, no matter how many other nations have signed on. If the United States is to make a unique moral statement as proponents urge, we shouldn't be stampeded into ratifying this treaty ``because other nations have.'' The United States passed on joining the League of Nations even though, as with the CWC, it had promoted the League in the beginning and many other nations had decided to join it. Too often the international community has pronounced itself greatly pleased at solving the latest crisis with yet another treaty like the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 which outlawed war as an instrument of national policy. And too often, as here, disappointment has followed because of the disconnect between the good intentions and the hard reality. To the argument that we will look bad because it was our idea in the first place, opponents say that real respect is rooted in responsible, honest positions; and that U.S. leadership in taking a different approach will be rewarded in the long term. It is not possible to ban the manufacture and possession of chemical weapons, and we should not delude ourselves into thinking it is possible. What we can do is back up our demand that no one use chemical weapons, with international cooperation based on the will to punish violators so severely that use is deterred. That too is not easy; but, as the use of nuclear weapons has been deterred, so too can the use of chemical weapons be deterred if we have the will.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record various op-ed pieces that relate to yesterday's debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to, first of all, thank Senator Gramm of Texas for his leadership in dealing with this Medicare funding crisis that faces our country. The comments that he just made ought to illustrate to us why it is incredibly important for the Senate and the House to work very quickly to address the challenge set forth in the report issued yesterday by the President's trustees on Medicare. As Senator Gramm pointed out, and I will quote from the trustees' report: The Part A Hospital Trust fund will be able to pay for benefits for only about four years [until 2001] and is severely out of financial balance in the long range. The trustees urge enactment of legislation this year to further control program costs and extend the life of the trust fund. Clearly, Mr. President, the time is upon us. We cannot wait any longer. What I am going to talk about briefly today is the fact that we have some proposals that are very short range and very minor in their improvements, while Senator Gramm is taking a longer look at the problem here toward the end of fixing it for a long time so that we do not have to keep putting these Band-Aid, short-range approaches into effect. The primary problem is caused by the aging of the baby-boom generation. Instead of this generation providing the workers who are supporting, with taxes, a relatively smaller number of people in retirement, those baby boomers are going to be the retirees who need the medical care, and they will not be supported by as large a group of workers as exists today. The Medicare part A hospital program is already starting to feel this baby-boom bulge. As I said, it is caused by the rapidly aging group of baby boomers turning 65 and becoming eligible for Medicare. Medicare will hospitalize 200,000 more seniors this year than last year. And the net increase will get larger and larger until it plateaus somewhere between the years 2012 and 2032. During that 20-year period, the system will experience a steady net increase of 1.6 million new seniors per year. Think of that, Mr. President, 1.6 million baby boomers retiring each year for 20 years, creating this huge bulge of retirees that are going to be eligible for Medicare benefits. And at the same time, during this same period, the relative number of workers is going to be decreasing so the payroll tax revenues will dramatically decline. Without prompt congressional action and Presidential support--it is obvious; and the trustees made this point yesterday--Medicare will soon be unable to fulfill its commitment that our Federal Government has made to our retiree population. Let me discuss briefly the two plans of the parties. Neither the Republican plan or Democratic plan, frankly, were sufficient last year to deal with this problem. The Democratic plan relied primarily on provider reimbursement reductions to reduce costs. That means we just pay the hospitals and doctors less money to do the same thing. Well, there is a point beyond which that does not work. Obviously, the hospitals and doctors do not have to treat these patients and they will conclude after a point that it simply is not cost efficient for them to do so and they are not going to do so. Unfortunately, the Republican plan also relied, to a certain extent, on reductions in reimbursement to providers though less heavily than the Democratic plan. The Republican plan also had another feature which was good and that was that there had to be some real reform in the system. And competition was the centerpiece of that reform. The idea was that you controlled costs by having increased competition among those who were providing the benefits to the Medicare patients. You create different products--products that have names like PPO's, preferred provider organizations; PSO's, provider sponsored organizations; and Medicare savings accounts, MSA's; to go along with the HMO's, the hospital managed organizations; and others that provide the care to the seniors through different mechanisms, different combinations of hospitals and physicians, sometimes in what are called capitating plans, sometimes in other kinds of plans, but all of which are competing with each other and therefore through that competition costs are kept in line. The Republican plan also included medical malpractice reform to curb the high costs of defensive medicine practiced by physicians and hospitals as a means of avoiding liability lawsuits. The Congress and the President have acknowledged the need to slow the rate of increase in Medicare costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's current proposal would save about $89 billion over 5 years. The Republican plan last year would have saved about $105 billion over the same period, along with the savings attributed to increased competition. But the key point here is that no one contends that either of these plans will achieve long-term solvency. More is needed to save Medicare than just greater reductions to reimbursement providers. As I said, the overload of the system begins in about the year 2010 when the first wave of this baby-boom generation begins to retire. And the President's plan does not even make it to that year. The President's savings only work to about the year 2007. Then you would have to start all over. The Republican alternative is better but it staves off bankruptcy only until about the year 2012. So clearly, before this baby-bulge meltdown occurs we have to have longer-range reform. Regardless of the reimbursement to provider reductions or product competition structural reforms something more will have to be done because there just are not enough workers that will support the growing number of retirees. To put it in perspective, Mr. President, in 1964 there were 3.5 workers for every beneficiary. And the total has grown to 37 million beneficiaries. The Medicare trustees estimate that by the year 2030 when the last baby boomer turns 65 there will be only 2.2 workers per beneficiary. So the current system which functions on a transfer- payments basis made directly from worker to beneficiary is clearly unsustainable. That 2.2 workers cannot possibly pay all of the expenses to run the Federal Government, all of the retirement benefits for Social Security and in addition to that support this growing group of seniors for their health care needs. It is time to investigate whether an investment-based health care system may be part of the solution to this approaching meltdown. This is the subject that Senator Gramm was talking about a few minutes ago. His investigation is into several proposals that would ensure the long- term solvency of the Medicare Program. And one of those proposals would allow workers to create their own medical IRA, an individual retirement account, for medical purposes by redirecting some or all of their payroll tax--it is now 2.9 percent-- into a savings account for medical purposes. His idea is that each employee's account would grow over his or her working life and would pay for health care after retirement. A series of studies have been done here at Texas A&M. And economists there in studying this have reached some interesting conclusions. For example, assuming a real rate of return of 3 percent--a very low rate of return on investment--a 22-year-old person could direct 1.3 percent rather than the current 2.9 percent of their payroll tax into a medical IRA, and at age 65 this person could purchase a policy that would provide roughly the same coverage that Medicare provides today. So you could put much less money that you are earning into this payroll tax and still come out the same place when you retire. If the real rate of return were the Standard & Poor's average over the last 70 years of 6.5 percent, a 22-year-old would have to invest only 0.4 percent of his or her wages to achieve the same result. So you can see that a real investment in an IRA-type investment by people would provide the same benefit at far less cost if the rate of return were even no better than the average that has existed over the last 70 years. Obviously, this kind of proposal would have to address some transition costs, the costs of converting from the current system to an investment-based system as well as Medicare's unfunded liability which is estimated today to be $565 billion. Without reform, this amount is projected to reach $3.9 trillion in 10 years, and in 20 years $6 trillion. Clearly, we cannot allow this system to continue. We are going to go bankrupt taking care of our Medicare population if we do not invoke fundamental reform. So the Congress and the President, both, must heed the trustees' warning, work together to protect current beneficiaries, while also working to provide a secure retirement for today's workers who are going to need something better than the Medicare system that is in existence today. We are going to need some kind of innovative program, such as that suggested by Senator Gramm, to enable them to invest a small amount today, which over time will grow to an amount that will take care of them in their retirement years. Increased Medicare product competition and medical IRA's funded by investing the payroll tax represent two of the many potential components of reform. We need to develop a consensus on these reforms on how to protect the current beneficiaries and the new group of baby boomers. If we begin doing it today, by the time the problem is really upon us, we may have a system in place that will provide this protection. If all we do today is support another short-range solution, we are going to find ourselves in true bankruptcy by the time the baby- boom generation retires. I commend the efforts of Senator Gramm of Texas in bringing this to our attention, in bringing innovative solutions to the floor. I hope my colleagues and I will be able over the next several weeks to put this into legislative form so in the long run we will have solved the problem, and future generations here will not have to worry about it the way we have to struggle with it today.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I will be very brief to a matter of news interest here in the Washington, DC, area. People might be watching this on a different channel of their television, viewing the ambulances and people attempting to assist, and at least two people who appear to have been exposed to some kind of chemical agent. My understanding is that Senator Lugar has just discussed this matter briefly, as well. This occurred at or near a B'nai B'rith facility here in Washington, DC. I think that while neither side in this debate would want to use an unfortunate incident to bolster their case, and while our first concern ought to be for the people who may have been exposed to some agent here--and we all certainly hope there is no harm done and that if, in fact, it was not accidental that the perpetrators are dealt with in the appropriate fashion--I think it is also an inappropriate place to make the point that contrary to those who assert that the Chemical Weapons Convention deals with this problem, it does not. We should be very, very clear about that. There are reasons for proponents to suggest that this Chemical Weapons Convention should be supported. There are arguments of opponents as to why that should not be the case. But I hope that we do not have people arguing on the floor of the Senate here that the Chemical Weapons Convention will deter terrorists, that somehow this will make us safer from terrorist attack, because it cannot fulfill that noble goal. We will literally be buying on to something that cannot come to pass if the treaty proponents try to sell it on that basis. As a matter of fact, there is specific declassified intelligence information directly on this point. I will quote that before the chairman resumes his time. A declassified section of the Defense Intelligence Agency document of February 1996, with specific reference to the Tokyo subway attack by terrorists at that time said: Irrespective of whether the Chemical Weapons Convention enters into force, terrorists will likely look upon CW as a means to gain greater publicity and instill widespread fear. The March 1995 Tokyo subway attack by Aum Shinrikyo would not have been prevented by the Chemical Weapons Convention. In May of 1996, another CIA report, a portion of which has been declassified, contains this statement: In the case of Aum Shinrikyo the Chemical Weapons Convention would not have hindered the cult from procuring the needed chemical compounds used in the production of sarin. Further, the Aum Shinrikyo would have escaped CWC requirement for an end use certification because it purchased the chemicals within Japan. There are some additional things we can quote. The point I am making is that reasonable people can differ about the pros and cons of this treaty. That will be reflected in the vote on the treaty here. I hope that Americans do not get the idea that we will be safe from terrorist attack or even significantly safer by the adoption of this Chemical Weapons Convention. Terrorist attacks are not what it was designed to deal with. I hope that point is crystal clear.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I always enjoy holding court with my friend from Delaware. We have had some of these debates in the past, and this is the thing that lawyers like to argue about, but I believe that most lawyers will agree with me that what they learned in law school was that the specific provisions of the contract always prevail over a general statement at the beginning of the contract. There are a lot of rules of instruction. Later provisions generally govern over previous provisions on the theory that you later describe your intent, fully cognizant of what existed before. The same thing is true with specific provisions of the contract, and that is why article I is called, not ``CWC article I,'' but rather ``general article.'' ``Article I, General Obligations.'' Then article II is definitions, and after that are the specifics. This is the reason why the Australia Group itself issued a statement right after this convention was entered into undertaking to review, in light of the implementation of the convention, the measures that they take to ``prevent the spread of chemical substances and equipment for purposes contrary to the objectives of the convention with the aim of removing such measures for the benefit of states parties to the convention acting in full compliance with the obligations under the convention.'' Australia Group members would not have had to do this under the interpretation of the convention by my friend from Delaware. Rather, they began to do this because they read articles X and XI the same as the many experts do that I cited earlier as limiting our ability to impose trade restrictions on states parties to the convention. That is why it says we will undertake to facilitate, and the other states parties have the right to the fullest possible trade in these chemical weapons. This is not just my view. I read to you what Secretary Cheney said before, James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and head of the CIA. It is plain that article X legitimizes such transfers.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senator Helms and Senator Biden, the floor managers of this treaty, for the work they did in bringing it before us. Mr. President, I share the hope of the supporters of this treaty that it will help end the proliferation of chemical weapons. I believe, however, that history will record this treaty as one of the most well- intentioned yet least effective in our history. My hope is that we will not relax our efforts in other ways to reduce this threat, that we will not be lulled into a sense of security when it is ratified. With the protections in the original resolution of ratification, I voted for the treaty. But the protections having been stricken, I must vote ``no.''

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I don't want to use the word insulting, but it has no persuasive force, let's put it that way. Does this mean if a country like Iran or Cuba, for example, signs up, that we would be associating with lesser thugs? Actually, don't the proponents of the treaty want us to associate with thug nations, if this is going to mean anything? Don't we want all of those countries in the treaty with us? Somehow, under their logic, we don't want to associate with these thugs. Yet, they want to pass a treaty that, presumably, if it is going to mean anything, has these thugs in it, in which case we are associating with them. Obviously, the point is not whether we are associating with thugs. I don't think that any of us can fail to make appropriate distinctions here. The fact of the matter is, those thug nations, if this treaty is to mean anything, ought to be part of the organization and, at that time, the United States then could participate in a meaningful way. Until those thugs are a part of this treaty, we are just wasting our time and money and putting a lot of our citizens to an awful lot of unnecessary hassle. The point of this condition is to make a point, to make the point that the countries that really matter are not even going to be governed by this treaty. It is one of the reasons why this treaty, in the end, cannot be supported.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, what is it about articles X and XI that cause Secretary Cheney and so many others to conclude that they should be removed? I will quote to you the language of both. They are on the chart behind me. Article X provides that `` * * * each state party undertake to facilitate, and shall have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, material, and scientific and technological information concerning means of protection against chemical weapons.'' In other words, in plain English, those parties which have defensive capability will undertake to facilitate the fullest possible exchange of that technology, equipment, and so on, to the countries that don't have them. They shall have the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of that equipment. Article XI is the article that says that the states parties shall: ``(b) undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of chemical equipment, and scientific and technical information relating to the development and application of chemistry for purposes not prohibited under the convention.'' That is to say, peaceful purposes. And, second, that the state parties ``shall not maintain among themselves any restrictions, including those in any international agreements, incompatible with the obligations undertaken under this convention, which would restrict or impede trade and the development and promotion of scientific and technological knowledge in the field of chemistry for industrial and agricultural research, medical, pharmaceutical, and other peaceful purposes.'' These two provisions were inserted in the treaty essentially as inducements to get the parties to join the treaty, in effect, saying, ``If you will join the CWC, those of us who have this technology and these chemicals will provide them to you. We will sell you the chemicals for peaceful purposes--not for chemical weapons. And we will provide you the defense technology so that you can defend against any possible use against you.'' Of course, the price for having that right is not developing chemical weapons. In this respect, the treaty was compared to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, and the so-called ``Atoms for Peace,'' which said that if the countries would forswear the development of nuclear weapons building that the developed countries of the world would provide them peaceful nuclear technology. For some countries this worked. But sadly we know that a couple of other countries used the peaceful technology to build their nuclear weapon capability. So, Secretary Cheney, and many others, fear that these sections, these articles, would permit countries--since they have been induced to come into the treaty with these commitments--to then call upon those commitments from the countries that have this equipment. Is this an unreasonable assumption? Today, we are basically hearing statements that suggest that that is not the way it was intended at all. That is a very recent phenomenon. As a matter of fact, right after the CWC was signed, it was very clear to all states parties that they begin to dismantle the trade restrictions they had in place on chemicals in order to come into compliance with the CWC. According to the administration in testimony before the Senate, and I am quoting now, ``Australia Group members''--these are the countries that have agreed not to sell chemicals to terrorist states--``in August 1992 committed to review their export control measures with a view of removing them for CWC states parties in full compliance with their obligations under the convention.'' They knew that those trade restrictions were incompatible with the new commitments they had undertaken in articles X and XI of the convention, and the Australia Group itself issued a formal statement which concluded again that states parties were reviewing this, and I am quoting, ``with the aim of removing such measures for the benefit of states parties to the convention acting in full compliance with the obligations under the convention.'' The point being that when the treaty went into effect the parties knew full well that trade restrictions they had were no longer compatible with the convention, with articles X and XI, and that they were going to have to review limiting those trade restrictions, and the Australia Group is a very successful group of countries that has trade restrictions against trade in chemicals to these terrorist states. Well, we then began raising the questions about articles X and XI. The administration position changed 180 degrees, Mr. President. The administration began to say, well, actually, we could continue our restrictions under these two articles. And we said, well, it will not do any good unless everybody else does it. They said, we could even persuade the Australia Group countries to do that. In other words, to do exactly the opposite of what they had originally decided they had to do to be in compliance. So the administration has made much of and my colleagues have spoken of the fact that the United States will now interpret the Chemical Weapons Convention as not requiring us to provide this equipment and as enabling us to maintain trade restrictions even despite articles X and XI. Moreover, that we have even tried to get our fellow Australia Group countries to maintain their restrictions in place. That is laudable. We have at least pushed the rock that far up the mountain. We have got them to agree these two sections should not operate the way they plainly say they will. I think it is a little unseemly to be signaling before we have entered the convention that we are going to violate it up front and convince many of our friends to violate it, because, frankly, it is the right thing to do because articles X and XI ought to be violated by us. They have no place in this treaty. The problem is the administration has also glossed over the fact that while we may interpret the treaty this way, there are others who do not. For example, China does not. Iran does not. And there are other countries that we heard about in our classified session this morning that do not. They explicitly understand that the treaty means what it says. And therefore two parties that have signed, not yet ratified but signed the agreement have indicated that they intend to continue their trade. And this is China selling chemicals to Iran, for Iran's chemical weapons program. That is the problem. And it is true that nothing prevents that trade from occurring today, Mr. President, but the problem is that the Chemical Weapons Convention gives them the color of law, the legal authority to be able to say: Look, we are parties to the treaty. The treaty says we can do it, so stop complaining and, by the way, don't impose any restrictions on us because of what we are doing. I do not know how long it will be before chemical companies in other countries are going to say wait a minute, why should the Chinese have all the action here; we would like to have a piece of that action, too, and therefore when one country breaks an embargo it begins to fall apart. That is why I submit that just focusing on United States action under the treaty is not going to solve the problem. There is also the idea--and this is really not a proper legal argument, but some have said that article I supersedes the specific articles of the convention. Now, for those who are lawyers, they recognize this is not true. The specific always governs over the general. Article I is a general prohibition. The very specific articles such as articles X and XI will control. They are the specific implementation of the treaty. But to conclude now, Mr. President, the President of the United States has said given the fact that there are concerns, continuing concerns about articles X and XI, I am going to write a letter which maybe will put your mind at ease, and that letter has been referred to here by some of my colleagues. I do not doubt the sincerity of the President in sending the letter and certainly do not doubt the sincerity of my colleagues in believing that letter provides some solace, but I would like to make five points with respect to that letter. If the things under articles X and XI happen that we think will, it does not solve anything for the United States to pull out of the treaty as the President says he might do. The time to exercise leverage is now before we are a party to the treaty. And what we are saying is prior to the United States getting into the treaty, we should make sure that articles X and XI are removed so that these bad things do not happen. Once they happen, there is no point of the United States pulling out of the treaty. That does not solve anything. So what the President says he is willing to do, frankly, is not an inducement. Moreover, there is the argument that it is better to be inside the treaty than outside the treaty. And believe me, once we are inside it is going to be much harder to leave than it is to get in in the first place. Third, certifications of the kind that the President indicated he would be willing to make are very, very hard to do. There are a whole series of certifications that have to be made under U.S. law. They are too hard. We end up not doing them. The certification of Mexico is a good example, to certify that they are cooperating with us in the war on drugs. Most people believe that that was not an honest certification. But the desire to cooperate with Mexico was so strong that it overrode the point of being honest in the certification. The same thing is true with the Arms Control Disarmament Act, the annual Pell report, section 51. We know that Russia is not in compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention or with the Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding or with the Bilateral Destruction Agreement, but the most this administration has ever done is to conduct high-level discussions with the Russians. It is too hard to certify that they are in noncompliance and therefore take the action that is required. The same thing is true under the Export-Import Ban Act with respect to violations by China and several other laws that China has violated with respect to its chemical weapons transfers to Iran. These certifications are simply too hard. And while I agree, I am sure the intentions of the President are appropriate in this regard, those certifications I submit are not going to be done. The time line here is important, too. This is a commitment by President Clinton. It is between 2 and 3 years before any action can be taken under this convention. That means that this President's term will almost be expired before he would have the opportunity to even consider the issues that are set forth in his letter. So it is not an effective commitment. And finally, Mr. President, the letter only deals with United States actions, the point that I made in the beginning. The question here is not United States actions. The question has always been what are we going to do with those countries of the world that seek an offensive chemical weapons capability, a capability that we would like to deny them, countries like Iran, the one I have been talking about here. This commitment, the President's commitment in his letter does absolutely nothing with respect to the sales of chemicals and chemical technology from a country like China to a country like Iran. It doesn't affect it at all. So while it is a nice commitment to have made with respect to the United States participation and attempting to keep the Australia Group together, the fact is it does not deal with part of the problem that has concerned us from the very beginning. I conclude with this letter to simply make this point. As I said, reasonable people can differ, and I respect the views of those who disagree with me. They have sincere belief that this treaty is better than nothing. And if they believe that way, they should vote yes on this treaty. There are also those of us who disagree with that proposition. But I urge my colleagues, if you believe that this letter provides the basis for support for the treaty, I honestly believe that is incorrect. If you are going to vote yes on this treaty, do it for grounds other than this letter because it does not provide a satisfactory response to the very real problem that has been discussed by Secretary Cheney, by Secretary Weinberger, by Secretary Rumsfeld, by Secretary Schlesinger, and a host of other people who have all said that the fundamental problem is articles X and XI. Unless they are removed, we are looking for more proliferation, not less, under this treaty. And it is for that reason the motion to strike should be defeated, Mr. President. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I do not like to disagree with my friend and colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. And I find that I rarely disagree with my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain. This is a treaty which has caused division among reasonable people. I respect their views immensely. We find that even former members of the same administration, the Bush and Reagan administrations, now find themselves on opposite sides of this issue. So it is a matter upon which reasonable people can differ. As I said, I respect the views of those who have disagreed with me, and they have certainly shown a respect for my views, which I appreciate. These two articles are among the most important in the treaty, and I think a little bit of background is important for us to understand the reason we believe that it is important that they not be included in the treaty when we enter into force. We have said initially that this treaty is not global. It doesn't cover countries that it should. It is not verifiable. It is fairly well acknowledged there are no sanctions. But supporters have said it is better than nothing. There are some advantages to it. Our response is that in some respects it is not better than nothing. In particular, these two sections, articles X and XI, make it worse than nothing, and we ought to get rid of them. It is true that to get rid of them, the states parties to the convention have to agree. That will take some time. But we believe it is better, before the United States enters, when we have the leverage to cause that renegotiation to occur, to have it occur at that time. Therefore, the resolution of ratification is passed, but prior to the President actually depositing those articles, the President certify to us that articles X and XI have been removed, or fixed. Why is this so important? Secretary of Defense Cheney was quoted by the distinguished chairman of the committee, and I think he succinctly said it. Therefore, I will summarize these thoughts by quoting Secretary Cheney in his letter of April of this year. He said: Indeed, some aspects of the present Convention--notably, its obligation to share with potential adversaries like Iran chemical manufacturing technology that can be used for military purposes and chemical defensive equipment--threaten to make this accord worse than having no treaty at all. In my judgment, the treaty's Articles X and XI amount to a formula for greatly accelerating the proliferation of chemical warfare capabilities around the globe. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Cheney's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let met summarize the argument the majority leader and I made in opposition to the motion to strike this condition. The treaty currently provides for the President to say that he does not want inspectors from certain countries coming into the United States. There is a reason for that. What we are doing is directing him only in two cases to, in advance, say, these are the countries covered: Those countries that sponsor state terrorism, pursuant to our definition of that, and China because of its violation of another law. So it is only those countries that have violated American law and who are the state-sponsored terrorists who can be denied inspectors in the United States.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the condition we have before us right now is whether or not the United States will be a party to a meaningful treaty, that is to say a treaty that covers nations that it needs to cover. It will not do us any good if we are a party to a treaty, paying 25 percent of the costs, to inspect ourselves. Right now, the countries that have ratified this treaty are not the countries that are of concern to us. They do not have weapons. As a matter of fact, right now the countries that are parties have nothing to inspect. The United States, if it believes this treaty is ultimately going to have any positive effect, that is to say if it has significant verification features, and if it is global in the sense that most of the countries of the world that have chemical weapons are parties to it, and if it is enforceable--at that point in time the United States presumably could get something out of this treaty. In the meantime, the only thing we get out of it is the opportunity to pay a lot of money, as I say, to inspect ourselves. Because the countries that need to be inspected are not yet in it. Specifically, 74 countries have ratified the treaty and they are the countries of least concern to the United States. The three countries that have the largest amount of chemical weapons in the world--Russia and China and the United States--are not parties, nor are any of the so-called rogue countries of the world. Many of these countries have no intention of signing onto the treaty. North Korea, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Sudan have all refused to sign the treaty. Others, such as Cuba and Iran, have signed the treaty but have not yet ratified it. In the meantime, some of these countries, such as Iraq, continue to stockpile and develop chemical weapons. So, the question is, will the United States enter this treaty at a time when it is meaningless, or will we, instead, use our entry as a prod to cause other countries of the world that need to be parties to be parties. For the treaty to offer any potential improvement, however modest, to the national security interests of the United States, I think at a minimum it must affect those countries with aggressive chemical weapons programs and which have hostile intentions toward the United States. Let me just outline briefly who these--who some of these countries are. North Korea--North Korea's program involves the stockpiling of a large amount of nerve gas, blood agents, and mustard gas. And it is capable of producing much more, according to our intelligence sources. Its armed forces have the ability to launch large-scale chemical attacks using mortars, artillery, multiple rocket launchers, and Scud missiles. And it is presently developing a new generation of medium- range ballistic missiles that will be able to carry chemical warheads. North Korea has neither signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Iraq--despite the most intrusive inspection and monitoring regime in the history of the world, Iraq has retained a chemical weapons production capability and continues to hide details and documents related to its chemical weapons program. The U.N. Special Commission believes that Iraq continues to hide chemical agents, precursors, and weapons. Iraq admitted in 1995 that it had produced over 500 tons of a lethal nerve gas agent before the Gulf war. The U.N. inspectors had previously been unable to uncover evidence of this, despite a more rigorous inspection regime than even those mandated by the Chemical Weapons Convention verification regime. As noted, Iraq has neither signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Iran--Iran has been producing chemical weapons at a steadily increasing rate since 1984 and now has a stockpile of choking, blister and blood agents of over 2,000 tons. It also may have a small stockpile of nerve agent. It has the ability to produce an additional 1,000 tons of chemical agents per year. It has signed but not ratified the CWC. Even so, and this is critical, Iran's chemical weapons program is among the largest in the Third World. It has continued to expand, even since Tehran signed the CWC. And the Central Intelligence Agency believes that Iran has no intention of abiding by the terms of the CWC. Iran is making improvements to its chemical capabilities that suggest it has made a long-term commitment to its chemical program. I repeat, the CIA believes that Iran has no intention of abiding by the terms of the CWC. It is the most active state sponsor of international terrorism. It is directly involved in planning and directing terrorist attacks. And it could supply chemical weapons to a number of terrorist groups. Iran has not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Syria has produced chemical weapons since the mid-1980's. The CIA believes that it is likely that Syria's chemical weapons program will continue to expand. Syria can indigenously produce nerve agents and mustard gas, and is stockpiling both agents. It may have produced chemical warheads for its Frog and Scud missiles for use against Israeli cities. Syria has not signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Libya--Libya has produced at least 100 tons of chemical agents, including mustard and nerve gas. Libya is capable of delivering its chemical weapons with aerial bombs, and may be working to develop a chemical warhead for ballistic missiles. It also possesses cruise missiles. Libya has neither signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Mr. President, the point is, unless these countries are party to this treaty, whatever benefits the treaty has are essentially meaningless. This is one of the reasons why former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said this, in a letter he wrote about a week ago. He said: Those nations most likely to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention are not likely to ever constitute a military threat to the United States. The governments we should be concerned about are likely to cheat on the CWC, even if they do participate. In effect, [he wrote] the Senate is being asked to ratify the CWC even though it is likely to be ineffective, unverifiable, and unenforceable. Having ratified the convention, we will then be told we have ``dealt with the problem of chemical weapons'' when in fact we will have not. But, ratification of the CWC will lead to a sense of complacency, totally unjustified given the flaws in the convention. Finally, to the point. The Senator from Massachusetts said that we are somehow holding ourselves hostage to the rogue states. Precisely the opposite is the case. We decide when to join this convention, not because the administration says there is an automatic deadline under which we have to do so, but when we say it will matter. When we are not having to pay 25 percent of the costs of a meaningless convention, in effect 25 percent of the costs to inspect ourselves. Mr. President, $200 million a year to help this U.N.-style bureaucracy, in addition to putting the businesses of the United States through all the hoops they are going to have to go through in order to comply with this convention. I have written to my constituents the names of companies on the list supplied to us by the Government as potentially required to comply with the reporting requirements of the convention. They write back to me saying it would cost them $50,000, $70,000, or more than $100,000 a year, just to fill out the forms. What we are saying is, instead of putting our businesses through the expense and hassle of having to comply with this when nobody in the United States has any intention of violating this treaty--these companies back in Arizona have no intention of producing chemical weapons--instead of submitting ourselves to that intrusive bureaucratic regulation and expense, not to mention the expense to the U.S. taxpayer, let us be involved in this when it means something; that is to say, when the countries we really care about are involved in it. Finally, to the point that we are somehow associating ourselves with thugs by not joining, I find that really an argument that is, really--

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, 10 minutes.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, Senator Helms had intended to present these remarks, and he cannot be here right at this moment. Therefore, I am going to proceed to deliver his remarks and then also yield to the majority leader should he wish to make a remark or two about this condition. If ratified, Mr. President, the Chemical Weapons Convention would provide inspectors from foreign countries unprecedented access to U.S. facilities, both commercial and Government-related. Inspectors would be permitted to interview site personnel, inspect records, photograph onsite apparatus, take samples, record readings of plant equipment, and use instruments to monitor processes. The risk that trade secrets or national security secrets could be stolen during inspection is very high. First, proprietary information is often the basis for a chemical company's competitive edge. Industrial espionage can enable a competitor to obtain at a minimal cost information that its originator acquired only through an enormous investment of time and money, thereby erasing the company's competitive advantage. For this reason, the theft of trade secrets can cripple even a giant company and can be fatal to a smaller enterprise. Second, because chemicals covered by the CWC are used in a variety of aerospace activities, from the manufacture of advanced composites and ceramics to additives for paints and fuels, dozens of defense contractors are targeted for routine inspections under the CWC. That means that when we are talking about proprietary information, we may also be talking about national security information. A company such as Lockheed Martin, Courtalds Aerospace, Hercules, Raytheon, and the Hexcel Corp. will be forced to allow foreign nationals access to their facilities, employees, and records. Our national laboratories further could be inspected under this treaty, as will Government facilities. Previous national trial inspections conducted in the United States in preparation for the CWC revealed that inspections under the treaty are an extremely dangerous threat to sensitive information. Soil and water samples were collected in the vicinity of rocket propellant production facilities on one such inspection. They were analyzed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Using modern techniques, analysts were able to discern classified information about the formulation of the rocket propellant and the process used to make it. Finally, Mr. President, China and others likely intend to use CWC inspections for espionage purposes. They should not be allowed to do that. The officials of the preparatory commission for the Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the OPCW, have stated that all of the Chinese inspectors were directed to volunteer for the organization and that these inspectors have direct ties to China's defense chemical warfare program. Accordingly, and the point of this condition, the Senate should uphold this provision which would direct the administration to exercise a United States treaty right--as the Senator from Delaware pointed out, we have this right under the treaty--we are simply directing the President to exercise this right to bar inspectors from China, which has an active industrial espionage program and has violated United States nonproliferation laws, from entering the United States to engage in these inspections. In addition, it would prevent inspectors from countries which are hostile to the United States and are state sponsors of terrorism--Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba--from participating in these inspections. Mr. President, I do not think this is an unreasonable provision. There is no downside to the provision, only the positive potential that fewer trade and national security secrets would be handed over to countries that are openly hostile to the United States. Therefore, I urge the Senate to reject the motion to strike. At this time I yield the remaining time to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. KYL. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of op-ed pieces. There being not objection, the material was ordered to be printed in