Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997. It will outlaw gambling on the Internet. I believe it will protect children from logging on to the Internet and being exposed to activities that are normally prohibited to them. And for those people with a gambling problem, my bill will make it harder to gamble away the family paycheck. Gambling erodes values of hard work, sacrifice, and personal responsibility. Although the social costs of gambling are difficult to quantify, research indicates they are potentially staggering. Gambling is a growing industry in the United States, with revenues approaching $550 billion last year--three times the revenues of General Motors Corp. In 1993, more Americans visited casinos than attended a major league baseball game. The problem can only grow worse with online casinos. Now it is no longer necessary to go to a casino or store where lottery tickets are sold. Anyone with a computer and a modem will have access to a casino: Internet users can access hundreds of sites for blackjack, craps, roulette, and sports betting. Gambling addiction is already on the rise. Online gambling will only increase the problem. Why is this bill necessary? It dispels any ambiguity by making clear that all betting, including sports betting, is illegal. Currently, nonsports betting is interpreted as legal. The bill also clarifies the definition of bets and wagers. This ensures that those who are gambling cannot circumvent the law. For example, virtual gaming businesses have been known to offer prizes instead of money, in an attempt to evade the law. Additionally, my bill clarifies that Internet access providers are covered by the law. As the National Association of Attorneys General [NAAG] task force on Internet Gambling reported, ``this is currently the most important section to State and local law enforcement agencies, because it provides a civil enforcement mechanism.'' FCC-regulated carriers notified by any State or local law enforcement agency of the illegal nature of a site are required to discontinue services to the malfeasor. NAAG believes that this can be a very effective deterrent. The bill includes interactive computer-service providers among those entities required to discontinue such service upon notice. Federal, State, and local law enforcement entities are explicitly authorized to seek prospective injunctive relief against continued use of a communications facility for purposes of gambling. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act makes explicit the intent of Congress to create extraterritorial jurisdiction regarding Internet gambling activities. Too often, illicit operators of virtual casinos set up shop in friendly jurisdictions beyond the direct application of U.S. law. It will also require the DOJ to report on the difficulties associated with enforcing the statute. Finally, it places some burden on the bettor. The Internet has great potential to promote both educational opportunities and business expansion in this country. At the same time, the Internet is fast becoming a place where inappropriate activities such as gambling, pornography, and consumer fraud thrive. Recently, many businesses have welcomed law enforcement's involvement in cracking down on consumer fraud. We must find a constitutional way to deal with the other problems raised by this revolution in communications. I believe that it is possible to impose some conditions, as we have in other areas, without violating free speech rights. There is growing support for changes to current law. As I mentioned, the NAAG has a task force on Internet gambling, and the report of the task force--authored by Attorneys General Dan Lungren and Hubert Humphrey-- called for a legislative remedy to stem the tide of gambling electronically. NAAG has endorsed my bill. Mr. President, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997 ensures that the law will keep pace with technology and keep gambling off the Internet. I urge my colleagues to pass the bill.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Madam President. First, let me associate myself with the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Alabama who has just spoken. My position is quite the same as his with respect to this nominee. Certainly, I must begin by saying that I believe Mr. Garland is well qualified for the court of appeals. He earned degrees from Harvard College and Harvard Law School and clerked for Judge Friendly on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for Justice Brennan on the Supreme Court and, since 1993, he has worked for the Department of Justice. So there is no question, he is qualified to serve on the court. Like my colleague from Alabama, my colleague from Iowa, and others, I believe that the 12th seat on this circuit does not need to be filled and am quite skeptical that the 11th seat, the seat to which Mr. Garland has been nominated, needs to be filled either. The case against filling the 12th seat is very compelling, and it also makes me question the need to fill the 11th seat. In the fall of 1995, the Courts Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the caseloads of the D.C. circuit. Judge Silberman, who has served on the D.C. circuit for the past 11 years, testified that most members of the D.C. circuit have come to think of the D.C. circuit as a de facto court of 11. In other words, even though there are 12 seats, theoretically, it is really being thought of as an 11-member court by its members. In fact, in response to written questions, Judge Silberman pointed out that the courtroom, normally used for en banc hearings, seats only 11 judges. In other words, that is what they can accommodate. When Congress created the 12th judgeship in 1984, Congress may have thought that the D.C. circuit's caseload would continue to rise, as it had for the previous decade. But, in fact, as my colleague from Alabama has pointed out, exactly the opposite has occurred; the caseload has dropped. It is the only circuit in the Nation with fewer new cases filed now than in 1985. During the entire period, the D.C. circuit has had a full complement of 12 judges for only 1 year. In a letter to Senator Grassley, Judge Silberman wrote that the D.C. circuit can easily schedule its upcoming arguments with 11 judges and remain quite current. Further, Judge Silberman noted that while the D.C. circuit, unlike most others, has not had any senior judges available to sit with it, the court has invited visiting judges only on those occasions when it was down to 10 active judges. Additionally, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, it costs more than $800,000 a year to pay for a circuit judge and the elements associated with that judge's work. In light of recent efforts to curtail Federal spending, again, I agree with my colleague from Alabama that it is imprudent to spend such a sum of money unless the need is very clear. Senators Grassley and Sessions have made sound arguments that the D.C. circuit does not need to fill the 11th seat. Their arguments are reasonable and not based upon partisan considerations. Similarly, my concerns with the Garland nomination are based strictly on the caseload requirements of the circuit, not on partisanship or the qualifications of the nominee. I would not want the opposition to the nomination, therefore, to be considered partisan in any way. Thus, although I do not believe that the administration has met its burden of showing that the 11th seat needs to be filled, in the spirit of cooperation, and to get the nominee to the floor of the Senate, I voted to favorably report the nomination of Merrick Garland from the Judiciary Committee when we voted on that a couple of weeks ago. But, at the time, I reserved the right to oppose filling that 11th vacancy when the full Senate considered the nomination. That time has now come, and being fully persuaded by the arguments made by Senator Sessions and Senator Grassley, I reluctantly will vote against the confirmation of this nominee. Based on the hearing of the Courts Subcommittee, caseload statistics, and other information, as I said, I have concluded that the D.C. circuit does not need 12 judges and does not, at this point, need 11 judges. Therefore, I will vote against the nomination of Merrick Garland. If Mr. Garland is confirmed and another vacancy occurs, thereby opening up the 11th seat again, I plan to vote against filling the seat--and, of course, the 12th seat--unless there is a significant increase in the caseload or some other extraordinary circumstance. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Grassley for his leadership in this area, as chairman of the subcommittee, and for allowing me to speak prior to his comments, which I gather will be delivered next. I yield the floor.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the State Housing Protection Act. I thank Senator Faircloth for his leadership on this issue and joining in sponsoring this bill. This bill prohibits the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] from enforcing a complaint of discrimination on the basis of a housing provider's occupancy standard, and thereby, transfers from HUD to the States the authority to set occupancy standards. Mr. President, in July 1995, HUD General Counsel Diaz issued a memorandum which, in effect, tried to supplant the traditional two-per- bedroom occupancy standard, and could have forced housing owners to accept six, seven, eight, or even nine people in a two-bedroom apartment. HUD should not be establishing national occupancy standards. In 1995, Senator Faircloth and I blocked HUD from imposing national occupancy standards until it completed an official rule. Soon thereafter, along with Representative McCollum, we introduced our bill to permanently transfer authority back to the States. The House passed it as part of its public housing reform bill, but it died in the conference committee late last year. By pursuing a policy that encourages overcrowding, thereby depreciating housing stock that is scarce to begin with, HUD is poorly serving lower income families and defeating its own charter. Our bill will help correct the problem. It is supported by the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, the Council of Larger Public Housing Authorities, the Multi Housing Institute, the National Apartment Association, the National Assisted Housing Management Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the National Leased Housing Association, the National Multi Housing Council, and the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. Several States have an occupancy standard; the one in my own home State of Arizona has worked well. The intrusion of a Federal bureaucracy often does more harm than good. That is why Senator Faircloth and I have reintroduced this bill. I urge my colleagues to join us and cosponsor it.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the State Housing Protection Act. I thank Senator Faircloth for his leadership on this issue and joining in sponsoring this bill. This bill prohibits the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] from enforcing a complaint of discrimination on the basis of a housing provider's occupancy standard, and thereby, transfers from HUD to the States the authority to set occupancy standards. Mr. President, in July 1995, HUD General Counsel Diaz issued a memorandum which, in effect, tried to supplant the traditional two-per- bedroom occupancy standard, and could have forced housing owners to accept six, seven, eight, or even nine people in a two-bedroom apartment. HUD should not be establishing national occupancy standards. In 1995, Senator Faircloth and I blocked HUD from imposing national occupancy standards until it completed an official rule. Soon thereafter, along with Representative McCollum, we introduced our bill to permanently transfer authority back to the States. The House passed it as part of its public housing reform bill, but it died in the conference committee late last year. By pursuing a policy that encourages overcrowding, thereby depreciating housing stock that is scarce to begin with, HUD is poorly serving lower income families and defeating its own charter. Our bill will help correct the problem. It is supported by the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, the Council of Larger Public Housing Authorities, the Multi Housing Institute, the National Apartment Association, the National Assisted Housing Management Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the National Leased Housing Association, the National Multi Housing Council, and the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. Several States have an occupancy standard; the one in my own home State of Arizona has worked well. The intrusion of a Federal bureaucracy often does more harm than good. That is why Senator Faircloth and I have reintroduced this bill. I urge my colleagues to join us and cosponsor it.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce the Patient Right to Know Act. I also want to commend my House colleagues, Representatives Greg Ganske and Ed Markey, for their leadership on this issue. procedural history The Kyl-Wyden Patient Right to Know Act, originally offered as an amendment on September 10, 1996 to the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, Postal appropriations bill, received 51 bipartisan votes; but 60 votes were required to overcome a procedural obstacle on the Senate floor. the problem Mr. President, the purpose of this legislation is to return to patients their basic right to receive all relevant information from their doctor, or provider, about costs, benefits, risks, and legal, and appropriate treatment options that are important to their health. This bill would allow doctors and other providers to comply with their ethical and legal responsibility to fully inform patients of all their reasonable and legal options, regardless of cost or coverage limitations in a particular plan. Some managed care plans forbid doctors and other providers from even mentioning all legal and reasonable treatment options to patients, either because the managed care plan's benefits will not pay for a particular treatment, or because of the relative cost of different treatments for the same condition offered by the plan. In recent years, there have been media accounts of a few of the countless individuals who have been denied care by physicians and plans in an effort to control costs. In April 1994, ABC's ``20-20'' reported on the case of a woman who was denied information about a bone-marrow transplant to treat her breast cancer. In October 1995, CBS presented a story about a woman who was denied information about and access to specialists, and who was later diagnosed with cancer. The national press has revealed the extent of this problem in publications such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the New York Times. For instance, the Times ran an article in September 22, 1996, entitled, the ``Tricky Business of Keeping Doctors Quiet.'' Americans have clearly noticed the deficiencies in some managed care plans. In a 1996 poll by the Patient Access to Speciality Care Coalition, 92.7 percent responded that it was very important that they be told of all treatment options, and 53 percent believe that they do not now receive enough information about how HMO's or managed care plans make treatment decisions. attempts at a solution Sixteen State legislatures have addressed the existence of gag rules, and several more are in the process of doing so. The industry itself has acknowledged this problem, possibly realizing that gag rules make good managed care companies look bad. On December 18, 1996, the American Association of Health Plans, which represents over 1,000 providers and 140 million Americans, announced voluntary guidelines that would end the use of gag clauses by member plans. Limited antigag regulations have been promulgated by the Health Care Financing Administration that apply to Medicare and Medicaid managed care insurance contracts. However, this still leaves us without a systematic approach to the problem. I believe we need a single, clear Federal standard, enforced by the States, that provides consistent protection of medical communications, for all health plan beneficiaries, no matter which State they live in, or which health plan they buy. This is the only certain way to stop individuals or entities whose goal is to reduce costs--at the expense of health care quality--by restricting medical communications between providers and patients. the congress may and must act It is clear that the Congress may act in this area since the offering and operation of health plans affects commerce among the States. It is also clear that the Congress must act. With the emphasis that health care reform places on managed care, it is essential that the Congress ensure that managed care techniques and procedures protect patients and guarantee the integrity of the provider-patient relationship. Mr. President, gag clauses in health care provider contracts attack the heart of the provider-patient relationship, and undermine the fundamental factor in the healing process: trust. The Congress has a substantial interest in preserving this relationship in the managed care environment it helped to create. This legislation is measured in its approach. It provides for State enforcement of a clear, reasonable Federal standard. And, before a floor vote, the legislation will include a conscience clause exception for providers and entities. After months of good-faith, bipartisan discussion, the precise legislative language to establish a conscience clause exception to the gag rule has not yet been crafted. However, all parties agree in principle that the rights and prerogatives of health plans and individual providers who, for religious or moral reasons, choose not to discuss certain treatments, must be protected. The question is, how best to accomplish this. I am committed to continuing to work with all interested parties to achieve the greatest consensus possible on this critical issue. I will continue to work to see that all interested parties have been heard on this issue and the greatest amount of consensus possible has been reached.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce the Patient Right to Know Act. I also want to commend my House colleagues, Representatives Greg Ganske and Ed Markey, for their leadership on this issue. procedural history The Kyl-Wyden Patient Right to Know Act, originally offered as an amendment on September 10, 1996 to the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, Postal appropriations bill, received 51 bipartisan votes; but 60 votes were required to overcome a procedural obstacle on the Senate floor. the problem Mr. President, the purpose of this legislation is to return to patients their basic right to receive all relevant information from their doctor, or provider, about costs, benefits, risks, and legal, and appropriate treatment options that are important to their health. This bill would allow doctors and other providers to comply with their ethical and legal responsibility to fully inform patients of all their reasonable and legal options, regardless of cost or coverage limitations in a particular plan. Some managed care plans forbid doctors and other providers from even mentioning all legal and reasonable treatment options to patients, either because the managed care plan's benefits will not pay for a particular treatment, or because of the relative cost of different treatments for the same condition offered by the plan. In recent years, there have been media accounts of a few of the countless individuals who have been denied care by physicians and plans in an effort to control costs. In April 1994, ABC's ``20-20'' reported on the case of a woman who was denied information about a bone-marrow transplant to treat her breast cancer. In October 1995, CBS presented a story about a woman who was denied information about and access to specialists, and who was later diagnosed with cancer. The national press has revealed the extent of this problem in publications such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the New York Times. For instance, the Times ran an article in September 22, 1996, entitled, the ``Tricky Business of Keeping Doctors Quiet.'' Americans have clearly noticed the deficiencies in some managed care plans. In a 1996 poll by the Patient Access to Speciality Care Coalition, 92.7 percent responded that it was very important that they be told of all treatment options, and 53 percent believe that they do not now receive enough information about how HMO's or managed care plans make treatment decisions. attempts at a solution Sixteen State legislatures have addressed the existence of gag rules, and several more are in the process of doing so. The industry itself has acknowledged this problem, possibly realizing that gag rules make good managed care companies look bad. On December 18, 1996, the American Association of Health Plans, which represents over 1,000 providers and 140 million Americans, announced voluntary guidelines that would end the use of gag clauses by member plans. Limited antigag regulations have been promulgated by the Health Care Financing Administration that apply to Medicare and Medicaid managed care insurance contracts. However, this still leaves us without a systematic approach to the problem. I believe we need a single, clear Federal standard, enforced by the States, that provides consistent protection of medical communications, for all health plan beneficiaries, no matter which State they live in, or which health plan they buy. This is the only certain way to stop individuals or entities whose goal is to reduce costs--at the expense of health care quality--by restricting medical communications between providers and patients. the congress may and must act It is clear that the Congress may act in this area since the offering and operation of health plans affects commerce among the States. It is also clear that the Congress must act. With the emphasis that health care reform places on managed care, it is essential that the Congress ensure that managed care techniques and procedures protect patients and guarantee the integrity of the provider-patient relationship. Mr. President, gag clauses in health care provider contracts attack the heart of the provider-patient relationship, and undermine the fundamental factor in the healing process: trust. The Congress has a substantial interest in preserving this relationship in the managed care environment it helped to create. This legislation is measured in its approach. It provides for State enforcement of a clear, reasonable Federal standard. And, before a floor vote, the legislation will include a conscience clause exception for providers and entities. After months of good-faith, bipartisan discussion, the precise legislative language to establish a conscience clause exception to the gag rule has not yet been crafted. However, all parties agree in principle that the rights and prerogatives of health plans and individual providers who, for religious or moral reasons, choose not to discuss certain treatments, must be protected. The question is, how best to accomplish this. I am committed to continuing to work with all interested parties to achieve the greatest consensus possible on this critical issue. I will continue to work to see that all interested parties have been heard on this issue and the greatest amount of consensus possible has been reached.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, I voted in favor of Federico Pena to be the new Secretary of Energy for the Clinton administration in the sincere hope that he will be able to provide the Department of Energy with the leadership and direction it needs to provide the proper stewardship of our national energy and security needs in the 21st century. I have addressed the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with my grave concerns about the current direction of the Department of Energy, especially with respect to the maintenance and stewardship of our nuclear weapons complex. I wish to use this forum, and the occasion of the Senate vote on Federico Pena, to restate my concerns and to reiterate my hope that the current trend at the Department of Energy will be reversed. Of particular concern has been former Secretary Hazel O'Leary's technically insupportable insistence that the United States can both maintain a credible nuclear deterrent and permanently forego nuclear testing. What is more, her lack of familiarity with the critical work of the Nation's nuclear weapons laboratories appears to have emboldened her to exert immense pressure on their directors to abandon the labs' longstanding view that the nuclear stockpile cannot be certified without periodic underground testing. Indeed, the nuclear weapons complex that the next Secretary of Energy will inherit from former Secretary Hazel O'Leary is a shadow of its former self, thanks in no small measure to a Clinton administration policy which the distinguished chairman of the House National Security Committee, Representatives Floyd Spence, has called erosion by design. In releasing a study of this reckless policy on October 30, 1996, Representative Spence observed that: ``The past four years have witnessed the dramatic decline of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and the uniquely skilled workforce that is responsible for maintaining our nuclear deterrent. The Administration's laissez-faire approach to stewardship of the nuclear stockpile, within the broader context of its support for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, is clearly threatening the Nation's long-term ability to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile. * * * In my mind, it's no longer a question of the Administration's ``benign neglect' of our Nation's nuclear forces, but instead, a compelling case can be made that is a matter of 'erosion by design.'' Mr. President, I share the concerns expressed in Representative Spence's study about the implications of the Clinton-O'Leary program for denuclearizing the United States. In this regard, two portions of the Spence report deserve special attention. Stockpile stewardship: The Clinton Administration's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program [SSMP] entails significant technological risks and uncertainties. Certification that U.S. nuclear weapons are safe and reliable--in the context of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--depends on developing highly advanced scientific diagnostic tools that do not yet exist and may not work as advertised. Funding shortfalls, legal challenges and other problems are almost certain to continue to impede progress in achieving the program's ambitious goals, and raise serious doubts about the ability of the program to serve as an effective substitute for nuclear testing. The Administration's commitment to implementing the SSMP and, more broadly, to maintaining the U.S. nuclear stockpile is called into question by DOE's failure to adequately fund the SSMP and to conduct important experiments. Dismantling the DOE weapons complex: Unprecedented reductions and disruptive reorganizations in the nuclear weapons scientific and industrial base have compromised the ability to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile. The cessation of nuclear-related production and manufacturing activities has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs and critical capabilities * * *. DOE still lacks concrete plans for resuming the production of tritium * * *. Unlike Russia or China, the United States no longer retains the capacity for large-scale plutonium ``pit'' production and DOE's plans to reconstitute such a capacity may be inadequate. Information and Physical Security Problems Yet another alarming legacy of former Secretary O'Leary's tenure as Secretary of Energy could be the repercussions of her determination to declassify some of the Nation's most closely held information. As a result, efforts by unfriendly nations--and perhaps subnational groups-- bent on acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities have been afforded undesirable insights into designs, developmental experiences and vulnerabilities of U.S. nuclear devices. Of particular concern is the fact that data concerning the precise quantities and whereabouts of U.S. weapons grade material have been made public, potentially greatly increasing the risk of terrorist operations aimed at stealing or exposing Americans to attack with such materials. Incredibly, Clinton administration budgets have significantly reduced the funding available for securing and protecting such sites. In fact, the 1997 Energy Department annual report on the Status of Safeguards and Security concluded that there is a $157 million shortfall in these accounts. Ironically, that almost exactly equals the amount contributed by the Department of Energy to the so-called cooperative treaty reduction, or Nunn-Lugar, program that is being spent ostensibly to improve the safety and security of former Soviet nuclear weapons and materials. The Cuban Nuclear Danger Last but not least in this illustrative listing of the challenges facing the next Secretary of Energy is another nuclear issue confronting this Nation--the prospect that one or both of the two defective nuclear reactors being built by Fidel Castro in Juragua, Cuba, will be brought online and then fail catastrophically. Should that happen, millions of Americans living downwind could be exposed to lethal levels of radioactive fallout. On September 11, 1995, Secretary O'Leary confirmed this danger in a letter to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms. She wrote: If construction [of these reactors] were resumed and the reactors completed, their poor construction and lack of regulatory oversight, and uncertainties about the qualification and experience of its operators would pose serious safety risks. Written answers accompanying the O'Leary letter in response to questions posed by Senator Helms about the Cuban nuclear program cited the following concerns: ``the quality of civil construction, the condition of critical reactor components, the regulatory structure and nuclear operating base, the plant staff training programs and industrial infrastructure in Cuba required to support operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants.'' The O'Leary Energy Department even went so far as to state: If a poorly designed, defectively constructed nuclear reactor began operation in Cuba, there would be an unacceptably high possibility that a large accidental release of radioactive material would occur. Dependent on the meteorological conditions at the time of a major accident, people on the U.S. mainland could be exposed to significant airborne (radioactive) contamination. In response to questions I posed to Secretary Pena during his confirmation hearing before this committee, I have been advised that he subscribes to the positions taken in the September 1995 O'Leary letter to Senator Helms. The trouble is that Mrs. O'Leary took no perceptible steps to address the menace posed by Castro's nuclear project. This may have been due to the Department's view, as evidenced in some of the answers to Senator Helms' questions, that the Soviet VVER-440 (Model 318) design might prove to be safe, after all--notwithstanding the fact that one has never been constructed or operated before. Alternatively, Mrs. O'Leary may have been satisfied, as suggested by other answers, that the levels of radiation from a Cuban meltdown would only contaminate the U.S. food supply--not directly harm the American people. Yet another explanation could be the O'Leary team's evident willingness to accept Russian claims that the Juragua reactors are designed to withstand seismic shocks up to 7 on the Richter scale. The response to Senator Helms that Mr. Pena has endorsed did not take note of the fact that there was a 7.0 magnitude quake in the nearby Caribbean Plate in 1995. Mr. President, I am concerned that Fidel Castro's nuclear ambitions could pose a significant threat to the United States. Others who have warned of this danger include: the General Accounting Office, the House International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, NBC News and several Cuban defectors who had first-hand experience with the dismal quality control and safety aspects of the Juragua project. It is astounding--and unacceptable--that preventing such a danger from materializing is not a top priority for the leadership of the Department of Energy and the executive branch more generally. Conclusion I would conclude by recommending to Secretary Pena that he carefully study, and try to emulate, the leadership of the first Secretary of Energy, James Schlesinger. Dr. Schlesinger brought to his position extraordinary experience and first-hand knowledge of the national security dimensions of the job. As a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Director of Central Intelligence and Secretary of Defense and by dint of his work in the private sector at the RAND and Mitre Corp., he was exceptionally well equipped to address the nuclear weapons-related issues of the day. It was largely to Dr. Schlesinger's credit that the antinuclear agenda of an earlier Democratic administration did not result in an ill-advised Comprehensive Test Ban. Secretary Schlesinger saw to it that the best professional advice--not the politically correct or coerced assertions--of those charged with certifying the Nation's nuclear arsenal were presented faithfully to the President and the Congress. It was clear that the considered judgment of the directors of the nuclear weapons laboratories and other responsible experts was that a small number of low-yield tests would be required each year to avoid reaching the point where confident weapon certification was no longer possible. As a result, the case was convincingly made that such tests were the essential last step in the scientific process--the experimental validation of the hypothesis that our weapons would work as designed. It was documented that many of the problems that appeared sooner or later in one-third of all designs deployed would never have been discovered if testing has not continued after the weapons were deployed. And it was established that without periodic testing, it would be impossible over time to retain the skilled design physicists and engineers responsible for daily judgments about the Nation's nuclear weapons. In the face of these compelling arguments, President Carter ultimately abandoned the idea of a zero-yield Comprehensive Test Ban. We are now confronted with another President committed to a zero- yield CTB. Indeed, the Senate will shortly be asked to consider such a treaty negotiated by the Clinton administration. I believe it is imperative, as the debate on the CTBT gets underway, that the next Secretary of Energy provide his subordinates in the Department and its laboratories with the same opportunity for honest, unpoliticized analysis and testimony as was afforded by Dr. Schlesinger nearly 20 years ago. I am hopeful that Secretary Pena will take these comments as they are meant--as an illustrative list of issues which must have his attention. I also hope he will understand the importance of these national security matters to Members of Congress and that Federico Pena will ensure that an environment is recreated in the Department of Energy in which national security responsibilities and rigorous scientific practice are given primacy over dubious arms control agendas and wishful thinking. If the vote today were on the Clinton energy policy, it would be a resounding ``no.'' Mr Pena is not an architect of the policy--yet. It is my hope that when Mr. Pena next appears before us he will demonstrate a willingness to lead and not be an apologist for a continued failed policy.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Senate's role in confirming judges. The ninth circuit is enormous. It spans nine states and two territories covering 1.4 million square miles. It serves a population of more than 45 million people; the next largest, the sixth circuit, serves fewer than 29 million people, and every other Federal circuit serves fewer than 24 million. By 2010, the Census Bureau estimates that the population of the ninth circuit will be more than 63 million--a 40- percent increase in just 15 years. Given the demographic trends in our country, it is clear that the population of the States in the ninth circuit, and thus the caseload of the Federal judiciary sitting in those States, will continue to increase at a rate significantly ahead of most other regions of the country. To serve its enormous population, the ninth circuit already has 28 judgeships, making it by far the largest circuit--and, in fact, larger than the first U.S. Senate. The next largest circuit, the fifth circuit, has 17 judgeships, while the first circuit has six and the seventh and eighth each have 11. The average number of judgeships in the Federal circuits other than the ninth is 12.6. Further, the ninth circuit has requested an additional nine judgeships, which would take it to 37 active judges, in addition to senior judges. Unfortunately, too often the decisions reached by this circuit have had to be reversed on appeal. According to statistics published in the National Law Journal, in the last six terms of the U.S. Supreme Court-- from the 1990-91 term to the 1995-96 term--the Supreme Court reversal rate for the ninth circuit was 73 percent, 69 of 94 cases were reversed. The average reversal rate for the other circuits was 61 percent, 268 of 442. And so far this term, the high court has overturned 10 of the 11 ninth circuit cases it has reviewed. Since circuit judges are simply supposed to apply the law enunciated by the Supreme Court, the obvious question is why the ninth circuit gets it wrong almost three-fourths of the time the Supreme Court reviews its decisions. Consider, for example, the 11 decisions handed down by the Supreme Court on February 18 and 19. Three of the eleven decisions reviewed ninth circuit cases. In all three cases, the ninth circuit was in conflict with other circuits. In fact, in one case, the ninth circuit disagreed with five other circuits. In all three cases, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the ninth circuit. Such decisive reversals are not an aberration. Most recently, on March 3, in a unanimous decision by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court reversed an en banc ninth circuit decision that Arizona could not require State employees to speak only English on the job. The Supreme Court ordered a State employee's challenge to Arizona's English-only constitutional amendment to be dismissed as moot because the worker resigned 7 years ago. The high court castigated the ninth circuit. As the New York Times, March 4, 1997, stated, ``Justice Ginsburg was pointed in her criticism of how * * * the Ninth Circuit * * * handled this case.'' For example, Justice Ginsburg wrote, ``The ninth circuit had no warrant to proceed as it did.'' Previous opinions have been even more damning. The Supreme Court is able to review only a small number of the ninth circuit's decisions. Thus, in all but a tiny fraction of cases, the ninth circuit is the court of last resort for more than 45 million Americans. To have so many subject to a circuit that so often errs should concern us. Some have attributed the ninth circuit reversal rate to the unwieldy size of the bench. Others point to a history of judicial activism, sometimes in pursuit of political results. I suspect there is more than one reason for the problem. Whatever the case, the Senate will need to be especially sensitive to this problem when it provides its advise and consent on nominations to fill court vacancies. The nominees will need to demonstrate exceptional ability and objectivity. The Senate will obviously have an easier time evaluating candidates who have a record on a lower court bench. Such records are often good indications of whether a judge is--or is likely to be--a judicial activist, and whether he or she is frequently reversed. Nominees who do not have a judicial background or who have a more political background may be more difficult to evaluate. As President Clinton noted in response to Senator Dole's criticism-- of ``activist'' judges--in the last campaign, the Senate has as much responsibility as the President for those who end up being confirmed. We need to take that responsibility seriously --among other things, to begin the process of reducing the reversal rate of our largest circuit.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it now appears that the balanced budget amendment will pass or fail by a single vote. If the amendment is defeated, I would venture that there is a greater chance that UFO's will land on Earth tomorrow than there is that the Federal Government will actually balance its books by the year 2002. It is unlikely that Congress and the President will ever balance the budget without a constitutional requirement to do so. Two years ago, President Clinton vetoed a balanced budget--the first balanced budget to pass Congress in 26 years. Not one Senate Democrat voted for the plan. And of course, since it would have taken 67 votes in the Senate to override the President's veto, the balanced budget never became law. President Clinton now says he has changed his mind--that he is for a balanced budget, but once again his support is conditional: we have to wait until after he leaves office to make 98.5 percent of the savings required to get there. Until then, it is business as usual. The President would create six new entitlement programs, costing at least $60 billion over the next 5 years. He would have us increase total Federal outlays by $827 billion over that period. We can do all this, yet somehow the deficit magically disappears in 2002. I am reminded of the old Peanuts cartoon when Lucy promises time and again to hold the football still for Charlie Brown, only to pull it away at the last minute. Every Republican Senator will vote for this amendment. A few Democrats will vote for it, too. An overwhelming majority of the American people want us to pass it. Yet President Clinton and most Senate Democrats ask us to trust them--they do not need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. How do we know that, in 3 or 4 years, when it finally comes time to get serious about deficit reduction under the Clinton budget, they will not yank away their support for a balanced budget again? Mr. President, we must pass the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will take a couple of the minutes we have remaining here. Let me reiterate. We are talking about two things here. One, we are talking about accumulated surpluses that don't have anything to do with Social Security. The point I made on behalf of Chairman Hatch is, if we ever get to that wonderful point, I don't think we will have any trouble figuring out how to spend that money. In fact, a lot of us would like to make it a little harder to spend so we can begin applying it to deficit reduction. So I am not concerned if it requires us to get 60 votes here to do that. Folks watching, of course, may appreciate that it takes 60 votes to do most things here in the U.S. Senate because a 40-vote minority can always filibuster. In order to break that filibuster and actually bring something to a vote here you have to have 60 votes. This is about the only body that I know of where a Member cannot call the question and automatically get a vote. We cannot get a vote in this body unless there is unanimous consent or 60 Members agree. So there is a 60-vote requirement to do a lot of things around here. Again, I am not too worried about getting a 60-vote requirement to spend surplus money in the U.S. Treasury. I suspect that will be a pretty easy thing to do. As to the matter of Social Security, again I think all of us are united in our concern. I commend the Senator from Wisconsin for his concern about Social Security recipients, and I know Chairman Hatch and all the Members on this side have the same concern. Again, I am not at all concerned that Members here would somehow slight Social Security recipients. They are going to be the first obligation that we satisfy. But, as I said, there is not going to be enough money for any of these things if we don't get the budget in balance. Mr. President, at this point I yield any additional time I have. I move to table the Feingold amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. Would it be the surplus in the Social Security trust fund or just surpluses that would be accumulated over the years?

Mr. KYL. In that event, Mr. President, I do not understand the argument of the Senator from Wisconsin, because we are not going to need 60 votes simply to reduce taxes. If we have a surplus, then the revenues that would be lost theoretically from a reduction in taxes would have to be offset. But there is no requirement in that case that there be a supermajority to cut taxes. The revenue that would result that would show up in subsequent years would be required to be taken into account in order to determine whether we had a balanced budget and whether we needed to reduce expenditures in subsequent years. But at the time that we would make the decision to cut taxes, there would not be a requirement for a 60-vote majority. To the other point that the Senator made, asking the question with regard to the Social Security trust fund, that I was somehow suggesting that we only honor our obligation when we have a surplus, I do not understand that either because, of course, that was not my point. That is not the fact. We have an obligation to our Social Security recipients, our retirees, that has to be satisfied regardless of whether the Social Security trust fund is in surplus or in deficit. That is a solemn commitment that we all understand and we are prepared to meet. Over the last several years, we have been building up a surplus theoretically, so we are in the situation now where there is a surplus. We are meeting the obligations. That is not at issue. We have to satisfy our obligations to our seniors. In the event that we begin to run a deficit, that obligation would have to be satisfied, as I described before. Nobody in this body or the other body is going to contend that somehow the balanced budget amendment is going to preclude us from doing that. It is an expenditure that is probably the first expenditure we will want to make around here. My guess is that there might be a bridge here or special subsidy there that might fall by the wayside, but Social Security payments are not going to fall by the wayside. In fact, again, unless we balance the budget, Social Security, along with everything else, is in jeopardy. Most of us, I think, would undoubtedly agree with the Senator from Wisconsin that Social Security is one of the very first obligations we are going to have to meet, and, therefore, it is probably not in jeopardy. I think we would all contend under no circumstances would we ever allow it to be in jeopardy. It is going to be other programs. But I would rather be in a position to say we can fund all the things that we would like to fund that are necessary to fund. If we do not get our budget in balance, we are not going to have that ability. There will come a time when there is not enough money to spend on key things like law enforcement and national defense and critical programs because our debt will have gotten so high that the interest payments on the debt are eating up the largest part of our budget. We have to get to the point where we are not running deficits anymore, our annual deficits are zero, but we can begin to pay down the national debt. That is why we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I think perhaps the best illustration of this is to look at the budget that the President presented to us just a couple of weeks ago. It is an amazing document because while the President purports to demonstrate that we can reach a balanced budget in 5 years, and therefore we do not need to pass the balanced budget amendment, his budget demonstrates precisely the opposite. It proves that you cannot get here from there unless you are required to do so by the Constitution. How so? Apart from the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says it is not in balance by somewhere between $50 and $70 billion--leave that aside--the President proposes that most of the savings that would be required to get into balance are in the last 2 years of the 5-year period--incidentally, after he is no longer President. Seventy-five percent of the savings would have to be made in the last 2 years, fully 47 percent in the last year--almost half of all the savings over a 5-year period. Now, what does that mean? Our budget deficit last year was $107.9 billion. We are going to go up to something like, I don't know, $126 billion this next year and $127 billion the year after that. We are supposed to be getting to zero. I had an old rancher friend tell me once if you are in a hole and you want to get out, the first thing you do is stop digging. This President would not stop digging until the very end and then magically, somehow or other, after he is long gone, we are going to ratchet up the courage to make all kinds of savings that we cannot decide to make in this year or the next year or the year after that. It is a little bit like the fellow who swears he is going to go on a diet; he has to lose 30 pounds. So he says, all right, I am going to do it by July 4. I am going to lose 30 pounds. First, however, I am going to eat like heck and gain another 20 pounds. And then, by golly, on July 1 I am going to start losing and by July 4 it will all be gone. It is not going to happen. That is why you need the discipline of the balanced budget amendment to force us to set the priorities so that we can achieve a zero deficit within 5 years, stop the accumulation of additional debt, which requires us to pay more interest on the debt, which eats up moneys that could be spent on education, on the environment, on defense, on law enforcement, on any number of things-- on Social Security. As I said, I mean all of us around here will agree Social Security comes first. So we really do not have to worry about Social Security. But we ought to be worrying about all of these other things because many of them are important just like Social Security is. And there is not going to be enough money for them if we do not get this budget in balance. That will not happen, as the President's own budget illustrates very clearly, until we have the discipline of a mandatory requirement under the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. So, again, I think this is where we really ought to be focusing right now. We can worry about how we are going to spend the surpluses if and when we ever get there. For now I would just be pleased to get to the point of zero. That is what is going to be required if we are going to be in balance, and that means we have to pass the balanced budget amendment. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Wisconsin and will respond briefly to them. First of all, I think it is important to note that the Feingold amendment, as I understand it, does not just apply to any potential surplus in the Social Security trust fund but would apply to any surplus. I think that is a correct interpretation. I go back to the comments I made a moment ago to reiterate that it ought to be more difficult to spend the surplus, first of all, because we could easily get into the habit of saying, ``Well, we have a few dollars here in surplus. Let's quickly go out and spend it,'' and, second, because we are not going to eliminate the debt or even begin to repay the debt if we do not apply surpluses to the debt. But as to the argument that this would apply as well to the Social Security trust fund, I think several comments are in order to the extent, if that is true, that it is true. First of all, of course, one could always run a surplus in the rest of the budget as a unified budget to cover the cost that the Senator from Wisconsin is talking about. In any event, this three-fifths vote requirement, so-called supermajority, is necessary to protect the Social Security trust fund from being raided to ensure that it is used for its true purposes. We are running a surplus today. We ought not to make it easier for Congress to continue to raid that surplus and spend it on other things. If there is any criticism that I get--and I get plenty when I visit with seniors out in Arizona--it is the criticism of the Congress and the President raiding the Social Security trust fund. They ask, ``Why are you spending that on other Government things when it is intended to be spent on Social Security?'' And, of course, they are absolutely right. We should not be. We ought to make that as hard to do as possible. That is one of the reasons that we are supporting the balanced budget amendment because we recognize that if we do not balance the budget, if we do not begin to set priorities in other spending programs, the temptation is always there to continue to raid the Social Security trust fund. So, ironically, the whole purpose here, or at least a significant part of the purpose, of the balanced budget amendment is to protect the Social Security trust fund. We ought to make it harder to raid that trust fund. I suppose one could postulate the situation in which we are at a point when we have to draw upon the IOU's that are in the Social Security trust fund, even for Social Security purposes. And I do not think that there is anybody in the House or the Senate who would argue that, in that circumstance, it would be very difficult to get the three-fifths vote. I mean no politician, nobody here in Washington, DC, is going to say, ``No, we don't think we will fund Social Security this year.'' That is the one obligation that all of us take as kind of our first rule. And, obviously, no one would be able to face the folks back home if we didn't do that, and we should not. We have that obligation. We owe that obligation, and it would be done. We have provided a supermajority in here for other kinds of emergency situations, and we have said those are clearly situations in which, if it is necessary, you could get 60 votes in the Senate, and three-fifths in the House, as well. I daresay, if we ever got to that eventuality, even if this applied to that situation, it would not be difficult to get the 60 votes necessary. So it seems to me that, as I said before, we are really worried about something here that isn't going to happen. I would much rather focus our attention on getting the budget in balance than to worry about what is going to happen after we do that and we start to run surpluses. I think that will be a wonderful day, if we ever get there. I do not think we will have trouble figuring out how to spend the extra money, and I would rather make it difficult to spend it so we can make sure that at least part of that begins to go to pay our national debt. I would be happy to stop at this point, if the Senator from Wisconsin has any other thoughts to engage in this debate further.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Senator Hatch was called away for a moment. I would like to present some of the remarks he would make in opposition to the amendment. Of course, nothing in Senate Joint Resolution 1 prevents us from running surpluses or saving those surpluses in a rainy day fund. But Senate Joint Resolution 1 does put a lock on savings to ensure that they are not spent frivolously. The proposal before us is based upon the argument that, under the balanced budget amendment, previously accumulated surpluses cannot be drawn upon in future years without a three-fifths vote. This is because, the argument goes, such funds would be spent as current outlays within the meaning of section 7, but would not count as current receipts and would therefore cause outlays to exceed receipts and trigger the three-fifths vote in section 1. Thus, this proposal seeks to prevent the use of previously accumulated surplus funds by a simple majority vote. While most of us are concerned with how to stop running deficits, this proposal exhibits concern about accumulated surpluses. Protecting accumulated surpluses with a three-fifths vote is not necessarily a flaw in the amendment, however. On the contrary, I see it as a strength. Requiring a supermajority to spend previously accumulated surpluses could help us ensure that they are not frittered away on enticing, but fundamentally unimportant, spending projects. Let us be realistic, Mr. President, we have had 28 straight years of deficits, and we have run deficits for 58 of the last 66 years. If we adopt the balanced budget amendment, we all believe that deficits will come to an end. I do not expect it will be easy to accumulate large surpluses, even under the balanced budget amendment. Proper planning and discipline can yield positive results. But I think it's important that we jealously guard the fruits of our budgetary labors and protect the surpluses we have managed to acquire, if any. This amendment seeks to make it easier to spend away any surpluses we manage to acquire. It seems to me that this is an ill-advised policy. We would be wiser to keep the surplus in the strongbox of subject it to a supermajority requirement to be certain that it is not whisked away in yet another Washington spending frenzy. Can we safely assume that the Congress would leave money sitting, unguarded, on the table? The supermajority requirement will help us ensure that when a real emergency arises, the surplus will be there to meet truly pressing and worthy needs. Both common sense and political reality dictate that there will be very little difficulty in getting the three-fifths necessary because, after all, who would vote against emergency aid when there would be no increase in the deficit? I do have a concern that allowing Congress the option of spending a portion of the national savings by simple legislative fiat might erode the effectiveness of the balanced budget amendment by relaxing the fiscal constraints on yearly spending. Congress might slip into a habit of spending accumulated surpluses with regularity and get used to spending beyond our annual income, just as we have gotten into the habit of borrowing under the current system. Then having wasted our savings, we would have much more work just to get back into annual balance habits. If we were fortunate enough to accumulate a sizable surplus, I expect we could stop patting ourselves on the back for simply not increasing the debt and actually start to repay some of the huge debt this country has run up. This is probably the best use of surpluses, particularly from a cash management perspective, and is what is contemplated as the normal use of surpluses under the balanced budget amendment. That is why Senate Joint Resolution 1 does not count repayment of debt principal as total outlays. As we pay down our debt, we will continue to free up capital, lower interest rates and our annual interest payments, and strengthen the economy, helping us avoid deficits and the need to draw on savings or to borrow. We would also be moving ourselves away from the debt ceiling and building a cushion of debt availability if we should have to borrow again. One final point, Mr. President. We have not balanced the budget in almost 30 years, as I have said before. It is perhaps a bit premature to start arguing about how we will spend surpluses. The first order of business is to pass the balanced budget amendment and get the deficit at least to zero. Then I submit that we can work on surpluses and true debt reduction. This is an interesting proposal, but it ought to be defeated.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to just raise one of the questions that rises under the Kennedy amendment, to ask the Senator from Massachusetts to respond to what I think is a real dilemma that is created. I presume it is an unintentional consequence, but it is the kind of thing that we have to be very careful of because, obviously, we are amending the Constitution here. We need to be very, very careful we do not do something wrong or something that would have a consequence that would be undesirable. The Senator from Massachusetts referred to the Nunn amendment from last year, which most Members of the Senate supported, and essentially compared his amendment to the Nunn amendment. There are a couple of subtle differences which makes a big difference between the Senator's amendment and the Nunn amendment. The Nunn amendment from last year provided that absent specific legislative authority, judicial review by the courts would not be possible, that is to say, ``The courts would not have jurisdiction for claims arising under the balanced budget amendment.'' And that was the language, ``for claims arising under the balanced budget amendment.'' The Senator's amendment, however, provides and adds specific legislation and authorizes judicial review: ``Congress shall have exclusive authority to enforce the provisions'' under the balanced budget amendment so that the courts would have no enforcement role. Let me repeat that in a moment here. Then I will provide a hypothetical which illustrates why that is not a good thing. The courts would have no enforcement role--that includes, of course, the right to protect a citizen who is acting under the Constitution in conformance with his constitutional rights and, therefore, would be denied the protection of the court. Could such a situation arise? Yes. The Kennedy amendment allows Congress unconstitutionally to raise taxes by use of a voice vote and no court can hold the tax unconstitutional. The balanced budget amendment requires raising taxes by rollcall vote. That, of course, means that we all have to cast our vote when our name is called. It is a written record, that each one go on record. And that is for a reason, of course. But if the Congress were to raise taxes by a voice vote, in violation of that constitutional amendment, citizens would be in a quandary of whether or not they could raise the question of the unconstitutionality of the imposition of a tax in defense when they are prosecuted for failure to pay the tax. The Nunn amendment did not have this draconian effect. Under the Nunn amendment, any taxpayer could raise as a defense the argument that the Congress passed an unconstitutional tax. The Kennedy amendment forecloses that debate by precluding court action by providing that the exclusive enforcement is by the Congress. So Senator Kennedy's amendment would allow the Government effectively to imprison taxpayers for refusing to pay an unconstitutional tax. Of course, that is an unintended consequence of the Kennedy amendment, but it is a consequence. And it is one of the reasons why we should not adopt the Kennedy amendment. One of the reasons why it is so hard to amend the Constitution is that we want to be absolutely certain that everything we have done will withstand the scrutiny of time and the Constitution. That is why we have a lot of hearings and debates, and perhaps one of the reasons why an amendment which comes to the floor for the first time for debate has not had the kind of hearings that would illustrate the problems with the amendment. That is an important part of our process here. The Nunn amendment went through that process. It was thoroughly debated and was approved. The Kennedy amendment, by making a very slight change in the Nunn amendment, raises a very serious constitutional question, and it is one of the reasons why I would not be able to vote for the Kennedy amendment. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. President. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I inquire of the Senator from Wisconsin, I am a little bit confused about the last point he made. Perhaps he could clarify this. Was the Senator from Wisconsin suggesting that if we might want to cut taxes because we have a surplus of funds unassociated with Social Security, it would require a 60-vote majority? Or was the Senator from Wisconsin assuming that the surplus that he described was the IOU's in the Social Security trust fund?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Senate has had before it several amendments that include provisions their proponents say will exempt Social Security from the balanced budget amendment. I do not doubt the Senators who propose the amendments are sincere in their desire to protect Social Security; none of us wants to harm Social Security, which is so important to so many older Americans. I have to say, though, that well-intentioned as their amendment may be, I cannot think of a greater threat to Social Security. Consider for a moment what it would mean to exempt Social Security from the balanced budget amendment. In effect, Social Security would become the only Federal program--the only program--where deficits would be permitted. The rest of the Federal budget would be required to be in balance. How on earth does allowing Social Security to be in deficit protect our seniors? Quite the opposite. If a balanced budget is good for other programs, why is it not good for Social Security? There is no greater protection for seniors than having the money to take care of our obligations. In fact, we have been able to provide for seniors precisely because Social Security has usually been in balance or surplus; it is the rest of the budget that has been plagued by big, chronic deficits. Now, at the very time it appears we are near consensus about how detrimental deficits are, some are proposing that we allow deficits to begin to infect the retirement program. In fact, the amendments to exempt Social Security would establish a constitutional presumption that Social Security will be run in deficit. Why else would the program be exempt from a balanced budget requirement? Mr. President, we have always made sure that Social Security is actuarially sound. When Social Security faced problems back in the early 1980's, Republicans and Democrats came together in a bipartisan way to rescue the program and make sure that the benefits of current retirees were protected and paid on time. On a bipartisan basis, we have abided by rules in the Senate that make it virtually impossible to pass a budget that adversely affects the Social Security surplus; it would take a supermajority vote to pass such a thing. On a bipartisan basis, we made sure that Social Security was exempt from the across-the-board spending cuts required by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction law in the 1980's. The Republican budgets of the last 2 years proposed ways of achieving balance without touching Social Security, and I assume President Clinton's new budget will not touch Social Security, either. So the reality is that Republicans and Democrats have worked together every step of the way to protect the integrity of the Social Security system. Why? Because there is general consensus in the country that Social Security must be protected. It has broad bipartisan support in Congress and around the country. It is supported by people young and old, rich and poor. It works. And unlike other programs run by our Government, it works because we have made sure that it has always operated in balance or with a surplus to cover unforeseen circumstances or expected future needs. That commitment to sound budgeting would be upheld by the balanced budget amendment--and applied to the rest of the budget as well. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few moments about what I believe are some of the misperceptions about the balanced budget amendment and the Social Security exemption that is being proposed. First, there is nothing in the balanced budget amendment that requires cuts in Social Security benefits. In fact, the budgets that Congress passed during the last 2 years would have achieved balance without touching Social Security, so obviously it can be done without harming the retirement system. Second, there is nothing in the exemption that is being proposed that would prevent Congress from cutting retirement benefits, means-testing benefits, reducing cost-of-living adjustments, or raising payroll taxes. The exemption would not prevent the expenditure of Social Security funds for other purposes; in fact, it would do just the opposite. Given that the exemption would allow Social Security to run a deficit, Congress will in all likelihood simply shift spending that cannot be accommodated within a balanced budget to the Social Security budget. Since Social Security is a program defined in statute--and Congress can amend that statute at any time by simple majority vote--Congress would be free to call virtually anything Social Security--whether it be Medicare, Medicaid, education, infrastructure development, or welfare-- and thereby extend the exemption to cover those programs, too. The incentive would be to raid the trust funds for any project or program that might otherwise bust the Federal budget, and that would endanger the solvency of what today constitutes the Social Security Program. It would also mean that a provision of the Constitution could be amended by a simple majority vote--by just amending the statute that is referred to in the constitutional exemption. That, of course, would directly contradict the amendment clause of the Constitution itself. Third, there is nothing in the exemption that precludes the Social Security surplus from being invested in Government securities and, in turn, being used to cover general operating expenses, just as it is now. Even those using Social Security as a pretext for opposing a balanced budget know that Congress has always made sure that the debt to the Social Security trust fund has been repaid--repaid with interest. Mr. President, the fact that the Social Security surplus is invested in government securities and used for general operating expenses does not mean beneficiaries are being shortchanged of any benefits due them. The surpluses do not exist for current retirees, but to help cover the cost of benefits when the baby-boom generation retires years down the road. So, the only relevant question regarding the safety and soundness of Social Security is whether, when it comes time to pay those benefits to future retirees, the Federal government will be able to cover its IOU's to the Social Security trust fund. That, in turn, depends on how deeply in debt the Federal government is. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office projected just last month that the budget deficit will reverse course and begin to rise again--from $107 billion in 1996 to $124 billion in 1997--and it will keep rising to $278 billion in 2007. Debt held by the public will increase 55 percent in just the next 10 years. The more debt that accumulates, the harder it will be for the Government to repay Social Security in the future while also meeting all of the Nation's other needs--for example, in law enforcement, education, the environment, and health care. The balanced budget amendment will help minimize the accumulation of debt and the threat to future retirees that is inherent in it. If Congress does not balance the budget--if it does not constrain the national debt--the temptation will ultimately be to monetize the debt-- that is, pay it off by printing more money. And that would lead to rampant inflation. No industrialized nation has ever reached the level of debt that our country is expected to face in the next century without monetizing the debt, printing more money, and experiencing destructive, rampant inflation. If inflation drives the cost of basic goods and services beyond the reach of most Americans--if, for example, bread costs $100 a loaf--it will not matter that a retiree's $1,000 Social Security check arrives promptly in the mail. The worst enemy of those on fixed incomes is inflation. So the exemption neither guards against cuts in benefits nor ensures that the government has the ability to repay its debts to the trust fund to cover future benefits. It is a false promise to the millions of Americans who depend on Social Security to meet their most basic of needs. Leaving Social Security under the balanced budget amendment will, however, make sure that the retirement system remains safe, sound, and balanced. And that is important because, while the system is running annual surpluses now, it will soon begin running huge deficits. Beginning in 2012, Social Security will begin spending more than it collects in payroll taxes. By 2029, benefits will amount to more than all payroll tax revenue, accumulated surpluses, and interest--meaning that the trust fund will have neither sufficient income nor savings to meet then-current obligations. If allowed to continue operating in deficit, the Social Security Program will rack up $7 trillion in debt by 2070. These deficits are the greatest threat to the Social Security system. Mr. President, the exemption will not protect benefits or guarantee repayment of IOU's to cover future benefits. It will not even ensure that Social Security surpluses are invested in something other than government IOU's. But it will make it far more difficult to balance the rest of the budget by not allowing the amounts invested in Government securities to be counted toward a balanced budget. That would mean Congress would have to cut spending, raise taxes, or both by an additional $706 billion over the 5-year period 2002 through 2007 beyond what would be necessary to balance a unified budget. The exclusion would force deep spending cuts--an additional across- the-board reduction of 10 percent--in education, the environment, Medicare, law enforcement, and other discretionary spending programs. Or, it would require huge tax increases--up to 12 percent higher than they are today. To put that into perspective, President Clinton's 1993 tax increase amounted to $241 billion. Last year's congressional budget resolution proposed slower Medicare-spending growth to provide savings of $158 billion, and discretionary spending savings totalling $291 billion. The $706 billion in additional deficit reduction that would be required by the Social Security exemption would amount to more than the Clinton tax increase and those two sources of savings combined. It would obviously be very difficult to find any consensus for such huge reductions, and therein lies the rub. I am very concerned that the Social Security issue--that older Americans--are being made the scapegoats for a vote against the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, if proponents of the exemption are serious about wanting to balance the budget, excluding Social Security, then they should lay out how they will deal with tomorrow's Social Security deficit as well as how they intend to cover the $706 billion gap in the short term. Or they should simply admit that they do not support a balanced Federal budget. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this week, the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on two measures related to international family planning. One, House Joint Resolution 36, which is supported by the Clinton administration, would release population control funds on March 1, instead of July 1. The funding could not be meted out any faster than 8 percent of the total appropriated for fiscal year 1997 per month--a limitation recommended by the President's Chief of Staff last year. But the funds could be made available to groups that provide abortions or lobby in support of more liberal abortion policies abroad. The alternative measure--the so-called Smith-Oberstar bill, H.R. 581--would provide for the immediate release of all fiscal year 1997 population control funds, subject to conditions that would preclude their use for abortion-related activities. In other words, Smith- Oberstar would ensure that the funds are used for what we all say is intended here--family planning, not abortion. I would point out that both measures passed the House of Representatives on February 13. But the Smith-Oberstar bill, which passed that Chamber with more votes than the President's proposal, would make about $170 million more available for the population control program than would President Clinton's plan. And, as I just noted, it would guarantee that the funds are used for their intended purpose-- family planning--not for abortion or lobbying in support of more liberal abortion policies abroad. It would reinstate the Mexico City policy, a policy initiated by the Reagan administration at the 1984 U.N. conference in Mexico City, attaching certain conditions to the way foreign organizations can use the American people's hard-earned tax money. Mr. President, there were two main conditions associated with the Mexico City policy. First, an Agency for International Development [AID] grantee, getting U.S. tax money for family planning overseas, could not be involved in abortion, even with its own resources. Second, that grantee could not lobby or pressure foreign governments on the abortion issue. At the crux of this debate is a simple question: Why did President Reagan establish those conditions for receipt of American tax dollars? Once we understand the answer to that question, we can get this debate into its proper focus. Let us start with this fundamental principle: Any nongovernmental grantee of the United States abroad--which includes, of course, all the organizations that receive U.S. population assistance funds--is, in effect, an agent of the United States. It does not matter how the group puts its own money to use. What matters is that, when we give them American dollars, we give them our seal of approval, too. An AID grant confers more than just funds. It bestows respectability, standing, and clout. It is, in effect, an official endorsement. And that is why, for decades, we have always imposed all sorts of restrictions and requirements upon AID grantees. We do so in recognition of the fact that money is fungible. Give a million dollars to an organization, and you free up a million dollars of its own money for other activities. Far more important though, we all understand that an AID grant marks an organization as acceptable, ideologically and ethically, to the United States. Back in 1984, President Reagan saw that AID grants to groups involved in abortion overseas presented an ethical dilemma. Yes, it was their own money they were using to perform or promote abortion. But every dollar they got from American taxpayers freed up another dollar for their abortion-related work. President Reagan understood that the international community viewed those abortion groups as quasi-official agents of the U.S. Government. And for good reason. Private organizations, having the imprimatur of taxpayer funding, could well be viewed by foreign leaders as speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government about abortion-related policies. In fact, some AID grantees openly ran pro-abortion lobbying campaigns, with their own resources of course, in countries where abortion was not legal. Their money, freed up by AID grants, gave them access to local media and local officials. In country after country, they ran sophisticated-- and effective--campaigns in favor of abortion. And they are still doing it. The tiny island nation of Mauritius is an example of the worldwide effort being waged by the International Planned Parenthood Federation. This is what IPPF said in its own report on activities in Mauritius: As a direct result of the advocacy campaign, the policy climate in Mauritius has changed favourably . . . The MFPA (Mauritius Family Planning Association, a member of the IPPF) is determined to maintain the momentum, and sees its role more stimulating as it contributes to the wave of change. There is a fundamental issue here: Should funds be earmarked for family planning as intended, or should taxpayers be required to fund lobbying activities with which they might disagree? While there is general consensus in favor of family planning, most people do not believe tax dollars should be used for lobbying activities. Back in 1984, President Reagan did not like the idea of our grantees pressuring foreign governments--particularly with the appearance of an official endorsement by the government of the United States. That is why he made a distinction, in his Mexico City white paper, between what foreign governments do with their money, and what our grantees do with their money. Foreign governments that might be involved in abortion would not be seen as agents of the United States, but AID grantees would be seen in that light. So in his Mexico City policy, President Reagan gave AID's population grantees a choice. If they wanted to remain eligible for future grants, they would have to promise not to get involved with abortion or abortion lobbying overseas, even with their own money. And the program worked very effectively with that kind of policy in place. While the Mexico City policy was in effect, the program provided funds to about 400 organizations worldwide, accounting for nearly half of the combined pool of family planning funds made available by donor nations. And as I recall, the amount of money appropriated for international family planning rose considerably during the Reagan-Bush years. Only two grantees--albeit two very powerful grantees--chose to put abortion advocacy ahead of their commitment to family planning. Their involvement in abortion was apparently so deep that they were willing to cripple the family planning work of even some of their own affiliates that were willing to accept the Mexico City conditions during those years. So when we are told today that the Mexico City policy--like the provisions of the House-passed Smith-Oberstar bill--would wreck international family planning, we need only look back on past experience to see what effect it really had. Mr. President, past experience tells us that almost every AID population grantee would put its commitment to family planning head of its involvement in, and lobbying for, abortion. Only one or two would not. This country's approach to international family planning is seen around the world as part of our foreign policy. And those few grantees that are zealous in their support for abortion should not be allowed to call the shots for what is really an arm of American foreign policy. So the question the Senate faces this week is not how much money the AID population account will get in March or in July. The question is whether, as a matter of American foreign policy, the prestige of the American Government and the resources of the American people should support family planning on the one hand, or a worldwide campaign for abortion on demand on the other. If that issue had been better understood when the House of Representatives voted on this matter earlier this month, the President's resolution might not have been approved. Mr. President, I want to conclude by quoting President Reagan, when he first enunciated the Mexico City policy in the early 1980's. He said: The basic objective of all U.S. assistance, including population programs, is the betterment of the human condition--improving the quality of life of mothers and children, of families, and of communities for generations to come. For we recognize that people are the ultimate resources--but this means happy and healthy children, growing up with education, finding productive work as young adults, and able to develop their full mental and physical potential. That goal should not be held hostage to the Clinton administration's demand that we fund groups involved in abortion and in abortion lobbying. Fortunately, we do have an alternative, as embodied in the Smith-Oberstar bill. That is the legislation the Senate should vote to send to the President this week. Mr. President, it is a shame that some people seem to care more about promoting abortions and related policy than providing family planning services abroad. I ask unanimous consent that a column by Robert Novak about that be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KYL. If we are going to get back to the old policy--a successful policy that ensured funds were made available promptly and used for population assistance as intended--we need to reinstate limitations similar to the Mexico City policy. When we can be sure that the funds are to be used for their intended purpose--that is, for family planning--I believe we will find a large consensus that will support the program. I, for one, will do so under those circumstances. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 1997] Family Planning Showdown (By Robert Novak) President Clinton's strategy for keeping U.S. funding of global population control free of restrictions on abortion was exposed in a remarkable speech delivered by the first lady two months ago in La Paz, Bolivia. Hillary Rodham Clinton, addressing the Sixth Conference of Wives of Heads of State and Governments of the Americans on Dec. 3, declared: ``Some members of the U.S. Congress have voted to limit American support for family planning initiatives. My husband's administration remains committed to encouraging a continuation of these investments.'' That left pro-life members of Congress open-mouthed in outrage. The ``limit'' on contraceptive help to poor countries that Mrs. Clinton deplored was proposed last year not by them but by her husband's chief of staff at the time, Leon Panetta. The Clinton administration's position: better take less birth control money than accept antiabortion restrictions. The House itself will choose which course in a showdown vote today. President Clinton, who as governor of Arkansas espoused a moderate pro-life position, is now joined at the hip with extreme abortion rights advocates. From his veto of the partial-birth abortion bill to his current stance on world population control, he will not risk alienating the feminist support that is critical to Democratic success. The current dispute began in August 1984, when the International Conference on Population held in Mexico City adopted language urged by Reagan-appointed U.S. officials. The nations of the world signed a report urging all governments to ``take appropriate steps to help women avoid abortion, which in no case should be promoted as a method of family planning.'' President Ronald Reagan then issued an executive order applying the Mexico City language to U.S. foreign aid. No longer would Uncle Sam be violating local religious and cultural norms that oppose abortion. Some 350 foreign organizations complied, but the London- based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) refused to certify that it would not promote abortion for family planning. Indeed, IPPF's current ``Vision 2000'' is a battle plan for fighting abortion prohibitions worldwide. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who along with other administration officials denies that the United States funds abortions abroad, in House testimony Tuesday said she had never heard of ``Vision 2000.'' On Jan. 22, 1993, two days after taking office, Clinton signed an executive order repealing the Mexico City language. With Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth pushing hard, population control money increased dramatically amid overall fiscal restraint. In two years, funding increased by 79 percent to $582.7 million. Republicans took control of Congress in January 1995 and sought to restore antiabortion restrictions. To break a deadlock last September, the Republican leadership offered this compromise; Organizations that followed the Mexico City language would receive full funding; those that refused--such as IPPF--would get 50 percent. No soap, said Panetta, Instead, he made a counter-offer at 6:30 in the morning on Saturday, Sept. 28, after an all-night negotiating session in the Capitol seeking an omnibus spending agreement. Panetta proposed a 35 percent reduction of family planning spending (the same as the rest of the foreign aid budget). In other words, accept less money for population control rather than accept antiabortion restrictions. Abortion has precedence over contraception. Facing another politically ruinous government shutdown, the Republicans had no alternative other than to say yes. The agreement also mandated a vote in the House (to be held today) on full funding without the Mexico City language. But pro-lifers will also offer an alternative co-sponsored by Republican Rep. Christopher Smith of New Jersey and Democratic Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota for even fuller funding--$713 million compared with $543.6 million--but including the Mexico City language. Vice President Al Gore has met privately in a strategy session with abortion-rights advocates, and White House aides have been whipping up public support. They have spread propaganda that the Smith-Oberstar, amendment represents a double cross that undercuts support of family planning. All of this is incorrect. Even if Smith-Oberstar passes both houses of Congress, a presidential veto is likely. That would cause spending to revert to the present $420.4 million level, with no restrictions on IPPF or other abortion advocates. Here is not a fight about contraception but about abortion.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you. Mr. President, after listening to the Chaplain's prayer this morning, I was reminded of the old saying, ``Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but not everybody wants to do what is necessary to get there.'' In his State of the Union Message, the President said he wanted to balance the budget by the year 2002, but he then went on to express opposition to the balanced budget amendment. Without the discipline of a constitutional balanced budget amendment, neither Congress nor the President will ever have the courage to pass one. The President has submitted a budget that is technically in balance by the year 2002. But let us look at it. If you check the fine print, you will find that 75 percent of the savings proposed by the President are postponed until the last 2 years of the 5-year plan, the years after President Clinton's term has ended. That is the problem. Just to cite the statistics, Mr. President, the budget deficit this year is about $107 billion. You would think if you are going to zero in the year 2002, and we are at $107 billion this year, we would reduce it a little each year until we got to zero. But actually the budget deficit goes up in fiscal year 1997, and the President's policies would boost it another $1.1 billion in fiscal year 1998 from where it would otherwise have been. In fact, in the last year--the year that we are supposed to be at zero--the savings required to achieve balance will be $117 billion. So the Congress will have to do more in savings in the very last year of this 5-year plan than we would have had to do to wipe out the deficit in its entirety this year. So $107 billion this year; we are going down to zero in the last year, and that last increment of savings is $117 billion. This is like the person who says, ``I'm going to go on a diet. I've got to lose 30 pounds. And I'm going to give myself 6 months to do it. But I think I'll eat real high off the hog for the first 5 months and 2 weeks, maybe gain another 25 pounds or so, so that in the last 2 weeks I'll lose 55 pounds.'' That is what the President's budget is suggesting. It is precisely why we need a constitutional amendment, to force the President and the Congress to make the tough choices to balance the budget; otherwise, it is the same old thing, just put it off until later. We all want to lose the weight, but we do not want to make the tough choices to lose it. Putting off tough choices for as long as possible is typical of just about every budget plan that we have had in the last several years, including the plan that Congress approved l\1/2\ years ago. It is why the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law failed in the 1980's. After all the easy choices have been made in the first few years, progress toward a balanced budget stops dead in its tracks. No one wants to make the tough choices needed to achieve the larger savings scheduled down the road. So the deadline for the balance is always pushed off just a few more years. President Clinton's budget postpones most of the savings, as I said. Congress will no doubt come up with a budget that will do the same. That is what always happens. That is why the national debt continues to grow. Mr. President, 2 years ago when the balanced budget amendment lost by one vote, the national debt was approaching $4.9 trillion. Today, the debt is over $5.3 trillion--an increase of about $400 billion. That amounts to about $1,600--$1,600--for every man, woman and child in America. With that increase, each American's share of the national debt now totals about $20,000. That is about what the average Arizonan earns in a year. Two years ago opponents of the balanced budget amendment said a constitutional amendment is not necessary. All we need to do is muster the courage to do it ourselves. That is what our constituents sent us here to do, make these tough choices. But we do not make the tough choices. That is the way it always happens. We actually did pass a balanced budget in the Congress of the United States in 1995. In that year it was the President who vetoed the balanced budget. So, Mr. President, it demonstrates that it is both the Congress and the President. When we muster the courage, the President is the one who apparently lacks it. Since that time, 2 years ago, Congress has had to add tens of billions of dollars to the budget just to get the President to sign the funding bills into law and keep the Government operating. Just last September, Congress had to add $6.5 billion that it would not have otherwise spent. And that is on top of an increase of about $25 billion the Congress had already built into the year's spending legislation. Desire and good intentions are not enough to ensure that balance will ever be achieved. Unless we are bound by the Constitution, Members of Congress and the President will always find some reason to spend more or to put off for another year the savings that are needed. The former Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, the late Paul Tsongas, explained it this way in testimony before the Judiciary Committee 2 years ago: ``There are a lot of votes in deficit spending. There are no votes in fiscal discipline. What you have here is a sad case of pursuit of self as opposed to pursuit of what is in the national interest.'' Senator Tsongas went on to say this: ``The fact that our generation could have conceived of having a consumptive lifestyle in leaving all that debt behind can only happen if we do not go home at night and look at our kids and grandkids and feel something.'' Mr. President, it seems to me that our departed colleague really hit the nail on the head. The balanced budget amendment is about our children and our grandchildren and what kind of country we are going to leave them. For most of our Nation's history, each generation has worked hard and saved and invested so the next generation would be a little better off. Only in the last 40 years has that changed. Now Government cannot seem to live within its means no matter how much it collects in taxes. It has, quite literally, mortgaged the homes and businesses our children will not buy or build for decades to come. My second granddaughter was born just about a year ago and she already owes, as her share of the national debt, $20,000. In fact, she can expect to pay more than $187,000 in taxes during her lifetime just to pay the interest on the debt. What will be left from her income to care for her children? How will the Government care for the needy of tomorrow when almost every dollar in individual income tax revenue is devoted just to interest on the national debt? Mr. President, a balance budgeted offers hope. Yes, it will require the Congress to prioritize spending so the most important programs are not jeopardized, and wasteful programs will have to be eliminated. Some of the luxuries will have to be postponed. A balanced budget will require heavy lifting, but offers hope and opportunity to Americans today and our children tomorrow. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that a balanced budget would facilitate a reduction in long-term real interest rates of between 1 and 2 percent. That means that more Americans will have a chance to live the American dream--to own their own home. A 2-percent reduction on a typical 30-year mortgage of $80,000 would save homeowners $107 every month. That is $1,284 a year, or over $38,000 over the life of the mortgage. That is money in their pockets. A 2-percent reduction in interest rates on a typical $15,000 car loan would save buyers $676. The savings would accrue on student loans, and credit cards, and loans to businesses that want to expand or create new jobs. Reducing interest rates is probably one of the most important things that we can do to help people across this country. I know there are those who have doubts. Some will say that balancing the budget may make sense in good economic times, but it is too rigid and will prevent us from responding to economic emergencies or other hardship when that occurs. I think it is important first to point out that deficit spending is so ingrained in the Federal Government that we have been running deficits in good economic times as well as bad during the last 40 years. Deficits have not been run solely to rescue the economy from hardship. If they were, we would not be having this debate today. Second, it is important to remember that the balanced budget amendment could be waived in times of true emergency. To ensure such waivers were not invoked routinely or without good cause, three-fifths of the House and Senate would have to agree. That should not be difficult in the case of real emergency. For example, when Congress extended unemployment compensation in response to economic problems in 1975, 1980, 1982, and 1991, it usually did so by a three-fifths majority. So the amendment leaves enough flexibility to respond to real emergencies. Mr. President, there is now general consensus that balancing the budget is the right thing to do. The President says he is for it, and the Republican majority in Congress says it is for it. We may be able to reach an agreement with the President and pass a plan this year to balance the budget by the year 2002. But without a balanced budget amendment, Congress or the President will no doubt find some reason to backtrack from the plan, if not next year, then in the year 2000 or 2001, whenever the going gets tough. If we are serious about balancing the budget, we must support the balanced budget constitutional amendment. For our children's sake, we must do it now.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KYL. I would advise the Senator from Georgia, I have about 3 minutes of remarks.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, during the next few months, millions of Americans will confront the annual task of filing their income-tax returns. What people would be startled to learn is that about 53 cents of every dollar of individual income tax they send in to the IRS this year will be required just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is 53 cents out of every dollar that will not be available to spend on health care for children, for education, for the environment, for aid to victims of domestic violence, for law enforcement, for national defense, or for any of the other important programs that serve the American people. It is 53 cents of every dollar just to pay interest on the bills that Congress and the President have racked up in years past. That 53 cents of every dollar does not even begin to pay down the national debt, which is increasing at a rate of $4,500 per second--a debt that threatens our children's very future. It now totals more than $5.3 trillion, or about $20,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. Some people say that a balanced budget would mean drastic cuts in important programs. But it is really the deficit--the debt--that is savaging our ability to respond to the Nation's needs. How much more could we do for the American people if we did not have to set aside 53 cents of every income-tax dollar just to pay interest? How much more could people do for themselves if their tax bills were cut in half and they had that 53 cents to spend on their own needs? It is really a balanced budget--not more deficits--that offers the greatest protection for the important programs our Government provides. A balanced budget will ensure that we have the money, for example, to take care of our obligations to seniors and those in need, to make streets safe for law-abiding citizens, and to make our country secure. It is, after all, those programs--those programs that are priorities for the American people--that will be funded first under a balanced budget. Of course, setting priorities would be something new for the Federal Government. We are used to operating with a national checkbook that has had an unlimited balance. That has allowed Congress to spend as much as it wants for whatever it wants. And when you have an unlimited balance to draw from, every program is as important as the next. But as any family knows, when you have to live within your means, you cannot have everything. The basics come first. In the context of a balanced Federal budget, that means things like Social Security, Medicare, and national security move to the front of the line. That is what it means to prioritize. It is just plain common sense. Most economists predict that a balanced budget would facilitate a reduction in long-term interest rates of between one and two percent. That means that more Americans will have the chance to live the American dream--to own their own homes. A 2-percent reduction on a typical 30-year mortgage in Arizona would save homeowners over $220 a month. That is $2,655 a year. A 2-percent reduction in interest rates on a typical $15,000 car loan would save buyers $676. The savings would also accrue on student loans, and credit cards, and loans to businesses that want to expand and create new jobs. Reducing interest rates is probably one of the most important things we can do to help people across this country. It is money in the pocket of every American. Mr. President, we need to balance the budget. The American people want us to balance the budget. But the only way to ensure that we really get there is to pass the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on January 10, 1997, Albert Wohlstetter passed away. His death is a great loss--not only to his family and friends--but to our Nation, which has benefited over many decades from his intellectual brilliance, vision, and moral clarity. For more than 40 years, Albert Wohlstetter was involved in all aspects of U.S. national security policy. Presidents, from Truman to Bush, profited from his analysis of major defense and foreign policy issues. What students of strategic policy, what policymakers in the Pentagon have not read, ``The Delicate Balance of Power''--and been awed by his penetrating insight? It speaks to his extraordinary, visionary intellect that he influenced so many from outside the beltway. Albert never joined any administration; he was never willing to take a position that may require compromise between truth and the demands of politics. As we approach the next century and the challenges it brings, we should keep in mind that Albert Wohlstetter was one of the staunchest champions of ``peace through strength''--before the term became popular during the Reagan administration. Albert cautioned against the folly of seeking security in arms control agreements, and advocated placing our trust in America's military strength and technological ingenuity. As we look back on his article, ``Spreading the Bomb Without Quite Breaking the Rules,'' we can see so clearly that Albert was also ahead of his time--recognizing in the mid-1970's that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty's peaceful nuclear cooperation provisions would fuel the proliferation of nuclear technology. As a result, America, our friends and allies are faced today with a growing number of countries who possess or are on the way to possessing, nuclear weapons. Whether he was analyzing strategic issues or unveiling the hypocrisy of Western policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, one could be sure of two things: Albert Wohlstetter was intellectually honest and thoroughly principled. For 4 long years, in countless articles, Albert reminded our leaders that with America's superpower status came not only vast military strength, but immense moral responsibility--and for those reasons, allowing a small nation in the center of Europe to become the victim of genocide was unconscionable. Mr. President, I have barely scratched the surface of Albert Wohlstetter's tremendous contributions to our Nation. I ask that the eulogy given by Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, be printed in the Record. The eulogy follows: Albert Wohlstetter, 1913-1997 (By Richard Perle) Not long before he died, Albert amused himself and--anyone who would listen--by reading a poem by Wallace Stevens called Six Significant Landscapes. Joan and Roberta thought I should read it here. And when they faxed it to me in Washington, I knew why: you can't hear this short poem without thinking about Albert, without seeing, in your mind's eye, that wonderful, warm, engaging smile which, prompted by a recollection or an idea or a phrase, would fill a room. So here it is, Landscape Six: Rationalists, wearing square hats Think, in square rooms, Looking at the floor, Looking at the ceiling. They confine themselves To right-angled triangles, If they tried rhomboids, Cones, waving lines, ellipses-- As, for example, the ellipse of the half-moon-- Rationalists would wear sombreros. Had I'd known the poem, or read it before telling a New York Times reporter on Sunday that Albert was a rationalist, I would have added that he was a rationalist who wore a sombrero. Because if there is one thing Albert never did, it was to wear square hats or confine himself to right-angles. Albert, in fact, never confined himself, period. His vision was wholly original, never conventional. And it was vast. Whether the subject was the design of strategic forces or the future of technology or the inadequacy of treaties and agreements or the implications of new systems of communication, or income distribution as a function of race or nuclear proliferation or the impact of topography on the stability of peace in Bosnia, Albert saw old issues in new lights--and new issues before anyone else. Albert's refusal to accept the conventional wisdom on any subject fueled his unrelenting drive to comprehend, to know, to learn, to understand. Thus he spent a lifetime searching for evidence, digging for facts, unearthing details. His appetite for documents was voracious. Maps, charts, statistics, studies, findings, testimony--he devoured them all, and on every conceivable subject. And thanks to Roberta--a wellspring of warmth, affection, wisdom and such order as could be detected at Woodstock Road--the ever rising flood of material that eventually forced the purchase of a second house, was there when needed. As so many here know well, Albert's capacity to assemble, analyze and absorb mountains of information was limitless. This was bad news indeed for those square hats who made the mistake of blundering into debates with him: anything they had ever said or done was certain to be dissected and delivered back. It would hit one right between the eyes. Whether in articles or briefings or congressional testimony or professional panels, when Albert set out to make a point, the holders of opposing--especially conventional--views were well advised to take cover. And all the while, over decades of intense debate and controversy, Albert conducted the discussion of public policy with style and wit, with humor and civility and, above all, with reason and integrity. He was on the front lines in countless battles over public policy for decades. Yet not once, in the nearly 40 years I was privileged to know him, did Albert exhibit even a sliver of the small minded, ill-tempered discourse that so often characterized the debate over issues of strategy. For half a century, the high ground was his. Albert's scoffing at conventional thinking sometimes had its humorous side. A few years ago, when Leslie and I were visiting at 2805 Woodstock, I watched Sam Tanaka, the Wohlstetter's Japanese gardener, hard at work planting something with great difficulty while muttering a stream of what I suspected were Japanese expletives. ``What are you doing?'' I asked. ``Oh,'' he said, resignedly, ``every year Mr. Wohlstetter makes me plant water chestnuts. Every year I tell him water chestnuts don't grow in southern California. He won't listen. `Try again,' he tells me. Ten years--no water chestnuts.'' Albert's motto might well have been ``All the world's a school and all the people in it merely students.'' For he made students of us all. It didn't take one very long to understand that Albert's towering intelligence and vast knowledge were gifts he felt impelled to share. I was in the eleventh grade at Hollywood High School when I had my first Wohlstetter tutorial, standing by the swimming pool at Woodstock Road. ``The Delicate Balance of Terror'' had recently appeared in Foreign Affairs, and Albert had just completed 80 or 90 classified briefings over many weeks in Washington. What a marvel of precision and compression that article was, and how intricate and subtle was the underlying analysis. I would never have pursued a career in strategic policy without Albert's patient, gentle, generous teaching which began one day in 1958 and continued for 40 wonderful years. And I might be a good deal thinner if Albert had been less successful instructing me in the joys of the Michelin Guide. To those of us who were fortunate enough to be his students, Albert had so very much to teach, not only about his chosen field, but about history and economics and music and art and architecture and food and wine and, for the really smart ones, mathematics and mathematical logic. There was hardly a subject about which Albert did not know a great deal and--invariably what was most important. Above all, he taught us the importance of accuracy and precision. He believed that one earned the right to comment the old fashioned way--by setting and meeting the highest standards of rigor and objectivity. I won't even attempt to catalogue Albert's extraordinarily rich intellectual legacy. He tackled a succession of vexing, complex issues of public policy from the early days at RAND in the 1950's until his death last Friday. He brought clarity and wisdom to everything he studied. But I do want to say a word about Albert's most recent work concerning Bosnia. No one worked harder than Albert to make the case for protection and just treatment for the victims of aggression in Bosnia, or to explain the broad implications of a failure to do so. In his eighties, when most men shed burdens rather than acquire them, Albert took upon himself the burden of gathering, analyzing and publishing the facts about the genocide in Bosnia and fitting those facts into the context of western security and values. In his customary manner, he worked tirelessly, night and day, for a distant people about whose plight he came to know everything important. His articles in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, his advice and counsel to others, his mobilization of friends, colleagues and students in the Bosnia cause were a wonderful, moving testimony to his sense of rectitude. And his singular effectiveness in shaping the opinion of thoughtful people around the world is a tribute to the power of a great mind hard at work. As he confronted the nightmare in Bosnia, I was never prouder of my friend and teacher. In all its depth and richness, Albert's life was in every sense a partnership. He and Roberta taught us all how far beyond the sum of its parts a marriage so whole and complete can reach. Those of us who marveled over the years at their seamless collaboration know that it was no bow to the feminist movement when Ronald Reagan awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom jointly to Albert and Roberta. Albert had many favorite things, among them a poem by Dylan Thomas. It goes like this: Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night. Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into the good night. Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into the good night. Rage rage against the dying of the light.