Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m., Wednesday, June 19; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1745, the Department of Defense authorization bill, and the pending Dorgan amendment as under the previous consent agreement.

Mr. KYL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like to send to the desk. I ask unanimous consent we lay aside the pending amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will describe this very briefly. It is actually a simple amendment. I will only discuss it here for about 3 or 4 minutes, then we can have further discussion tomorrow when there are more Members present, when they desire to do so. This is an amendment dealing with nuclear testing, and the effect of it is to simply extend the time for the President to decide to test a nuclear weapon to the point that the United States ratifies a comprehensive test ban treaty and it goes into effect. Today, the law is, as of September 30, the President could not order a nuclear test unless another country were to test a weapon. What this amendment would do is to allow the President to order a test for safety and reliability purposes; in other words, not dependent upon whether another country happened to engage in testing, and that right would exist until such time as this country ratified and a CTBT went into effect. This chart describes very simply what we are doing. The current law is that as of September 30 of this year, the President's ability to order a test would no longer exist, unless another country engaged in a test. And then once a CTBT is entered into force, there is no test except for extreme national emergency. What our amendment would do is to continue the status quo until such time as there is a CTBT, and the rationale is very simple. The fact that another country tests does not necessarily mean that the United States should test. Our ally France has conducted nuclear tests. China has conducted nuclear tests and plans to conduct some more. And in neither of those events is it necessarily the case that as a result the United States should test. We have no reason to test just because some other country does. But there is always the possibility that the President would want to order a test in order to assure stockpile safety and reliability. If we had some reason to believe, for example, that one of our weapons was no longer safe and we wanted to test that it was safe or to find out why it was not safe, in that event, today the President has such a right to order such a test, and he would continue to have that right until such time as the CTBT is adopted. That is it. That is as simple as the amendment is. I further state, the Congress would have the right under this amendment to ratify the President's decision or to reject it, based upon reports that the President would continue to send to us. Today, the President is required to send us a report, and we would continue to require that report be sent to us on the status of the stockpile and whether any testing is required. Under this amendment, if the President said he wanted to conduct a test, the Congress would have the ability to tell him he could not do so. This is not something that we are suggesting that the President do or suggesting that he would do it. It is simply a safety valve, if you will, in the event of some untoward event with our stockpile that the President should conclude that a test is necessary that he would have the ability to do that. It does not affect the CTBT negotiations in any way. As I said, our amendment simply goes up to the time that a CTBT is entered into. It is that simple, Mr. President. If Members wish to further discuss it tomorrow, I will be happy to try to answer any questions about it or discuss it. I cannot imagine it would be particularly controversial. Mr. President, if there is no one seeking to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3029, and, further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on behalf of the leader, again, there will be 15 additional minutes of debate on the Dorgan amendment tomorrow morning, with a vote to occur on or in relation to the amendment at approximately 9:15--a vote on the Dorgan amendment at approximately 9:15. As a reminder to all Senators, rollcall votes will be strictly limited to 20 minutes in length. All Senators should be reminded of this early morning vote, and to be prompt. Additional amendments are expected to the Department of Defense bill on Wednesday. Therefore, Senators can expect rollcall votes throughout the day.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 266, submitted earlier today by Senators Moseley-Braun and Simon.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be placed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The Senator said it just exactly right. Independence Day takes on a new meaning. We are finally independent. We can keep the money we raise and spend it on our own families instead of funding government programs.

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, I received a letter from Jerry Harbin of Phoenix, AZ, one of my constituents. Mr. Harbin works two jobs, his wife works another job, and they earn a modest income between them. The Harbins, who are in their mid-fifties contacted me because they are worried, worried that because so much of their earnings are eaten up by taxes, they have been unable to save for retirement. They are two, among many people, who I hear from every day telling me how difficult their lives are right now and how fearful they are about what the future has in store. Why is it, Mr. President, that so many families, like the Harbins, are struggling just to keep their heads above water? Why is it that Americans seem to be working harder and working longer, and yet they have less to show for it? Why is it that more people have to take two jobs just to make ends meet? The answer, I think, can be summarized in three words: The tax trap. The tax trap. It is really very simple to explain. The harder you work, the more taxes Washington makes you pay; the more taxes you have to pay, the longer and harder you have to work. Only Washington ends up with more. As Jerry Harbin put it, people are working themselves into early graves just to pay for Government programs that are not working. Think about what the tax trap has done to society, to families, to working parents. As another one of my constituents, Mike Barry, of Scottsdale put it, and I quote from a letter: We have the greatest nation in the world and probably the highest standard of living, and yet because we don't have the willpower and discipline to make the tough decisions to get our ``checkbook'' in order, we are risking our future and the future of our children. Mr. President, Americans were once the most optimistic people on Earth, but that seems to be changing. In the America my parents knew, if you worked hard and you played by the rules, you had enough money left over from your paycheck to put something away for the future and still have enough for the little extras in life, and that is what the American dream was all about. It was about making a decent life for ourselves and securing a prospect for a better life for our children. Why is it, then, for the first time in our Nation's history that an entire generation seems to be losing confidence in the future? It was not that long ago that the largest investment most people ever thought about making was buying a home. If they worked hard and saved, they could buy a house, live the American dream. But today that dream is out of reach for many families. Many people are now sending more to the tax collector than they spend on food, clothing, and shelter combined. Let me say that again. They are paying more in taxes than they spend on food, shelter, and clothing. There is nothing left over to save for a new home. Some people, like Margaret Bonghi of Phoenix, are really caught in the middle. They cannot afford to buy and they do not qualify for assistance of any kind, and yet they cannot afford to rent either. After taxes, there is nothing left over for her to save. Here are the figures, Mr. President. In 1948, Federal taxes took about 3 percent of the average family's income. But today, almost half of what people earn goes to the Government in one form or another-- half. The tax trap keeps families from buying their own homes. It hurts young people, like 18-year-old Jarrod Wilson in Phoenix, who is very much upset about how much of his earnings are taken by the Government and wasted. He is scared about how much of his paycheck he will be able to keep in years to come. High taxes are a worry for working women who are trying to balance a career with family obligations. Children are put in day care because both parents have to work just to have enough left over after taxes to pay their bills. For decades, now, Washington has assured people that it can solve every problem with new spending or some kind of new program. It raised taxes, promised more, but few problems were really solved. So it raised taxes again, and the Government grew even bigger. We now have a bureaucracy that includes 160 different job training programs; 240 different education programs; 300 economic development programs; and 500 urban aid programs. Have all of these programs really made Americans better off? A recent audit of the Labor Department found that about $305,000 was spent for each participant placed in a training-related employment program in Puerto Rico for about 90 days. The beneficiaries of this program were hired to perform the menial tasks that they had wanted to escape from by participating in the training program in the first place. So the program not only failed to train people for better jobs, it wasted millions in tax dollars that hard-working families could have spent on real needs. Can Washington really afford all of these programs? It can if it continues to raise people's taxes. President Clinton was not in office 100 days before he proposed the largest tax increase in the Nation's history, taking more of people's hard-earned incomes, again, to expand the size and the scope of the Federal Government. By comparison, Republicans spent the first 100 days last year trying to cut spending and cut taxes only to have President Clinton veto our balanced budget and tax relief bill in the end. Did you ever wonder why President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress have been asking people to sacrifice a little more so Washington could spend a little more? Why? Should we not demand that Government be more careful with people's money? It should not surprise anyone that more and more families find it difficult to make ends meet, that more and more people are forced to live from paycheck to paycheck, and that too many Americans want to put something away for the future but cannot, that almost everyone feels the squeeze from rising prices and higher taxes. Keep in mind that the cost of the Clinton administration's policies to the typical family is $2,600 a year in higher taxes and lower earnings. What then is so wrong about asking Government to live within its means so that people can earn more, keep more and do more for themselves and their families? What is wrong with fixing problems that are broken, dismantling programs that are unnecessary and giving the benefit back to working Americans in the form of lower taxes? I know there are some in Washington who say we cannot afford a tax cut if we are serious about balancing the budget. They seem to view the economy as a zero-sum game. It is a line of reasoning that says no one can ever do better unless someone else does worse. If you cut one person's taxes, then they say you have to raise someone else's taxes. It is like trying to divide a pie into ever more slices, satisfying no one in the process. Some of us think that we should try to make every American better off; that we want to grow the economy, in effect, to make a bigger pie so that all Americans can do better. That is what happened during the years that Ronald Reagan was President, when income tax rates were cut 25 percent across the board for everybody. Real median family income grew every year but one, between 1982 and 1989, rising $4,564, or 12.6 percent. That is real median family income. It rose over $4,500. Inflation virtually disappeared by 1986 which, of course, protected all Americans, but particularly senior citizens on fixed incomes. Because the economy was so much healthier, tax revenues to the Treasury increased between $60 billion and $80 billion a year. So actually lower tax rates resulted in higher tax revenues to the Government. How can that be? It is the same thing that happens when the manager of a local department store schedules a sale and he cuts the price of the products that he sells. He does not do it to lose money, he does it to sell more goods. The store takes a smaller profit on each item, but the increased volume of sales more than makes up for the lower prices when the store counts its receipts at the end of the day. The same thing happens in taxes. President Reagan cut taxes 25 percent across the board, something that helped to spawn the longest peacetime expansion of our economy in the history of the country. By the end of President Reagan's second term in office, real gross national product had risen by more than 4 percent. Nearly 19 million new jobs were created, over 85 percent of which were full-time jobs in occupations with average annual salaries of over $20,000 a year. Interest rates fell, and as a result of the healthy and growing economy, revenues to the Treasury increased, as I said, between $60 and $80 billion every year. That kind of growth was not unique to the Reagan years. It was typical of the economy's performance during other tax-cutting periods. For example, President John Kennedy proposed even bigger proportionate tax rate reductions than President Reagan's. Income tax rates were reduced in the 1960's from a range of 20 to 91 percent to a range of 14 to 70 percent. Revenues to the Treasury rose 66 percent by 1969. Under Gov. Pete duPont's administration in Delaware in 1979, the top State income tax rate was cut from 19.8 percent to 7.1 percent. By 1993, State revenues had doubled, employment increased 36 percent, and welfare caseloads fell by 40 percent. The high-tax policies of the 1990's have had just the opposite effect. Real median family income has declined $2,108, or 5.2 percent. Since the beginning of 1995, the economy has only grown at an annual rate of about 1.6 percent. More than a third of the new jobs that have been created have gone not to people just entering the workplace or just getting off welfare, but to people who had to take an extra job just to make ends meet. Interest rates, which had declined during most of 1995, are now rising again after President Clinton vetoed the balanced budget and the tax relief package that the Congress had sent him. In fact, until Congress forced President Clinton to get serious about limiting Federal spending last year, deficits were forecast at $200 billion a year in the foreseeable future, despite record-high taxes. What that proves is that a sluggish economy and overspending, not a lack of revenue, are the real causes of the Nation's deficit problem. Mr. President, some economists have proposed yet another round of income tax rate cuts to stimulate economic growth and to put more money back into people's pockets. Others have suggested that more limited relief, like a $500-per-child tax credit or a tax credit for educational expenses, would do more good. As Grover Norquist, who is head of Americans for Tax Reform, recently said, paraphrasing, I think, Mae West, ``All tax cuts are good tax cuts, and even bad tax cuts are good tax cuts.'' In other words, just about anything we do to leave more money in people's pockets is a good thing. But the benefit of an across-the-board tax cut, I think, is that it reaches out to all Americans. It treats everyone alike, and everyone therefore would benefit. It says to the American people that we trust them to spend their money in ways that is best for themselves and their families. It would allow people to keep more of every dollar earned from their extra effort in the workplace no matter what kind of work they do, or from their extra investment, no matter what kind of investment they may make. The broad nature of such a tax cut applying to all forms of work and investment ensures that effort and capital are steered to the most productive activities in the economy, instead of other activities that the Government deems the most important, through targeted tax credits or deductions. It also seems to me to provide the fairest kind of tax relief. Everyone would be treated the same. Tax rates would be cut 15 percent across the board, boosting take-home pay and relieving a major source of anxiety among people in middle and low incomes. Notably, a 15-percent tax rate would take revenues as a share of gross domestic product back to where they were before President Clinton took office--to 19.2 percent from the current 20.4 percent--effectively repealing the Clinton tax increase. Mr. President, I want to conclude by suggesting that an across-the- board tax cut is probably the best way to stimulate the economy, the best way to boost take-home pay, the best way to create new jobs and, in turn, the best way to provide more revenue to the Treasury in order to balance the budget. I hope that Bob Dole and President Clinton will bring this debate to the American people during this upcoming campaign so that perhaps a consensus can develop among the American people during the next several months, so that when the new President takes office, the new Congress comes into office next January, we will feel some mandate to put the will of the people into action, to provide for an across-the-board tax cut that can benefit us all, allow us all to keep more of our income to spend as we think best for our family, but also, as a result of the increase in economic growth, to provide more revenues to the Treasury, to provide for the needs of the people through Government and provide for a balanced budget. That is the benefit of an across-the-board marginal income tax cut. I hope that both candidates and those in public policy positions will seriously consider this proposal as perhaps the best single thing that we can do for the people that we represent, the people of America. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to continue this same theme of discussing ideas that have been put forth by Republicans in the Congress and which the President has claimed he also supports, though in some cases the record would suggest otherwise. Former Congressman and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp has said something that I always thought was very wise. He said that campaigns are not so much about defeating an opponent as they are about providing leadership and new ideas. The Republican Congress, particularly under the leadership of then Majority Leader Bob Dole and Speaker Newt Gingrich, have provided the leadership and the new ideas that have animated the agenda here in Washington for the last year and a half. It began with the Contract With America, and it followed through with many of the ideas that have just been discussed by the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Minnesota. One of those was the idea of tax cuts that the Senator from Minnesota was just talking about. These were proposed, of course, by Republicans. The President said, ``Me, too, but not as much.'' With regard to welfare reform, the Senator from Pennsylvania talked about that. I remember when President Clinton said, ``Me, too'' on that, and tried to steal the thunder, apparently, from Majority Leader Bob Dole, who was prepared to talk about welfare reform, when President Clinton said, ``I like that Wisconsin State plan. That is the kind of real welfare reform we need,'' in a Saturday morning radio address. Then, when it came time for following through and signing the waiver that would allow Wisconsin to follow through with its welfare reform, the White House said, ``Well, we are not quite ready to do that, yet. We want to think about it a while.'' So one is not even certain whether, when the President says, ``Me, too,'' he really means it. In any event, taxes and welfare have been discussed. Let me mention quickly three other subjects that fall into the same category. One is the subject of defense and, in particular, ballistic missile defense. This is something that has concerned Republicans in the Congress, and some Democrats, for a long time. It was a particular challenge when, during the cold war, the Soviet Union had the capability of raining on the United States the ultimate in weapons of mass destruction, the ability to destroy, literally, the United States and, if we retaliated, eventually the world. President Reagan decided that the best way to deal with this was through the development of a defense, so that no longer would the world be threatened with annihilation as a result of two superpowers killing each other and every other living thing on the face of the Earth; that we would provide a defense for ourselves so no nation would want to attack us because they would know they could not succeed and they would simply be wasting their money to try. That work on star wars, as opponents called it--it was really called the Strategic Defense Initiative [SDI]--is credited by many Russians as being one of the things which finally caused the Soviet Union to throw in the towel in the cold war, to acknowledge they could never compete with us, not only economically but also militarily in these sophisticated high-tech areas, and, therefore, they may as well decide to be our friend rather than our enemy. Today's ballistic missile threat is a little different. It does not come from a country like Russia. It comes from a lot of so-called rogue nations around the world who are acquiring the technology to deliver weapons of mass destruction by ballistic missiles, perhaps a little shorter range than the Russian missiles, but still with the capacity to rain harm on their neighbors, on neighboring states, on the capitals of our allies, capital cities, on troops deployed abroad. The administration said, ``We are for that, too. But we do not really want to spend as much money as it would take to develop the systems, at least as soon as you would like to see them developed.'' So it has been distressing to those of us who tried to support these programs to see the administration delay them and delay them and delay them, while all the time suggesting that nevertheless they do support them. Specifically, I have in mind two very important theater ballistic missile programs, the so-called THAAD Program and the Navy Upper Tier Program. Both of these are designed to, when they are deployed, intercept missiles that would be delivered by an enemy in some theater around the world. One reason for the Navy program is that you could send the Aegis cruisers all over the world, literally, and defend against such a situation. For example, if the North Koreans decided to launch one of their new missiles against Japan or against South Korea, or even, as they will have the capability of doing after the turn of the century, against the United States--say Alaska or Hawaii--positioning those Aegis cruisers somewhere in the western Pacific would permit us to intercept such a missile. The administration, however, has refused to comply with the law of the land in spending the money necessary to develop those programs within the timeframe called for by the legislation that was adopted by the Congress and signed by the President last year. Therefore, it is another example of an idea where the President has said, ``I am for that, too,'' but he is not willing to back up the words with actions. Quickly, Mr. President, two other examples I wanted to mention. One is one where I really hope we can have a bipartisan effort, because this should know no partisanship. It deals with the question of victims' rights. People who have been victimized by violent crime ought to have some constitutional rights in our criminal justice system. I say criminal justice system because that is what it has come to be called. But in a perverse way, it also expresses what has really happened to our system, where justice is provided to criminals--and we would have it no other way--but it is not provided to the victims of crime. We need to right that imbalance right now. Our society believes in the rights of innocent people so strongly that we even say we would rather have nine guilty people go free than have one innocent person convicted of a crime. So we protect the rights of defendants, people who are accused of crimes. But we do not provide similar protections to those people who are innocent and have already been victimized. Senator Feinstein, a Democrat, and myself have introduced a constitutional amendment to protect victims of crime. We hope this will be a bipartisan effort. Recently, we find that sounds coming from the White House suggest, again, the President is for this. I am hoping this time he will not only be for it in his expressions, but that he will support us in our effort to get this constitutional amendment adopted. The former majority leader, Bob Dole, is a cosponsor of our legislation. I would be very, very pleased if President Bill Clinton would join with us in supporting this constitutional amendment so Republicans and Democrats alike could provide real protection for the victims of crime. This should be a real test for the President. Will he not just say, ``Me, too,'' but come aboard and achieve the goal. Finally, I just wanted to mention the fifth item, and that is the balanced budget. The President has been very, very willing to say he, too, is for a balanced budget. The problem is that every effort that we have undertaken to try to achieve that balanced budget he has thwarted. We tried to do it first through a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, because we knew it would be difficult to get the Congress to actually pass a balanced budget. He lobbied several Senators on the Democratic side who had previously supported the balanced budget amendment, urged them to oppose it, and it failed by one vote, as we all know. So we did not get a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, even though the President said he was for a balanced budget. He said that ought to be the job of the House and Senate, so we took him up on his word. On November 17 of last year, the Senate of the United States passed a balanced budget, the first one in 20-some years, I think it is 28 years. The House did the same thing. We sent that balanced budget to the President. On December 6 last year, he vetoed it. He is for a balanced budget, but when it came time to actually sign it, he was not ready to do that. So, once again, we have an example-- this is the fifth one, as I said--where the President is very quick to say, ``Me, too,'' but when it comes time to follow through, he is not there. I will return to the beginning of my remarks. As Jack Kemp said, campaigns are about providing leadership and new ideas. The Republicans have provided this leadership. We have provided the new ideas. We have really won this campaign of ideas because it seems to me that the President and many of our Democratic friends are now agreeing with us that welfare reform, Medicaid reform, tax relief for American families, a strong national defense, a balanced budget, regulatory reform--which I have not even talked about--all of these things are good ideas and they should be implemented. The President says, ``I agree.'' The problem is that we cannot get him to follow through with this. That is what this next election probably is going to be all about. Will we follow our leadership? Do you agree with our ideas? If you do, Mr. President, what we will be saying is elect the kind of people who will follow through on those ideas. If you do not agree with those ideas, of course, then you are going to want to support someone else. But I think politics is about providing leadership and new ideas. These are the right ideas, and it is time for us to get support, not just in the House and in the Senate of the United States, but from the President of the United States. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Bob Dole's statement upon announcing he would give up his Senate seat to run for the Presidency--that he is ``just a man''--packs a lot in a simple string of words, as is his habit. This phrase captures the modesty, the simplicity, and above all the straightforwardness and honesty of the Senator from Kansas. Men like Bob Dole achieve great things because they go at them directly, with no ifs, ands, or buts asking a lot of themselves and taking responsibility for the bottom line. Senator Dole's more than 35 years of service to the Congress of the United States have been filled with great accomplishments because he never let up, he brought people of different views together to hammer out legislation, and he was an honest broker trusted by everyone. My father, Congressman John Kyl of Iowa, served with then-Congressman Dole in the House of Reprentatives in the 1960's and knew him to be a man of leadership and utter integrity. As Congressman Dole, and later Senator Dole, learned his job as a legislator, he never lost that sense of being ``just a man'' from Russell, KS. He is not one to be dazzled by the bright lights, the pomp, and the power of Washington. He came armed with the simple virtues of his Kansas constituents, and those same virtues are evident in him today. He remains the embodiment of the heartland of America--a place much maligned by sophisticates, perhaps, but a place that still has the moral strengths that we Americans define ourselves by: dedication to duty, plain but honest speech, and an awareness that limited government requires of office holders that they never take their power for granted. When Bob Dole says that he is grateful to have served his fellow citizens, those are not empty words. We believe him. In his parting statement today, he hold us that ``there are some issues that transcend politics * * * and result in legislation that makes a real and lasting difference.'' Whether it is a matter of supporting civil rights, doggedly backing our military troops in an unpopular conflict in Indochina during the 1960's and 1970's, or ensuring access to public places for disabled Americans in the 1990's, he has often put aside partisanship and laid it on the line for the things he believes in. His statesmanship, his ability to come to closure for the sake of the common good, is well known to those of us who have worked with him inside this institution. But perhaps few outside of the Congress are aware of it. If everyone could know him as we do, they would see a man with an extraordinary capacity to see beyond the heated conflicts of the moment, to keep the big picture in mind, and to reach a consensus that yields practical results. If everyone knew him as well as his colleagues do, they would see that Bob Dole has everything it takes to be President of this country. Of the Senate he now says, on the day of his departure, ``It is a place that I have loved.'' Again, no rhetorical flourishes, just simple words of emotion, and all the more powerful for being unadorned. He reached the pinnacle of leadership among Senate Republicans, and for all too short a time has been leader of the Chamber itself. But he has walked away, and in characteristic style. Bob Dole is at the peak of his powers. But he moves on, ready to take on the biggest challenge in a life full of challenges. He has demonstrated--and in a remarkably dramatic way--that he is not one to rest on his laurels; instead, he is the kind of man who does honor to every contest he enters.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to join the Senator from Mississippi in paying tribute to the Senator from Kansas, the distinguished majority leader. All of us who have served in this body can tell stories--even those of us who have served a very short period of time, such as myself--that reflect the qualities of Bob Dole's leadership. Those of us who are partisan Republicans can only hope that a majority of American citizens can get to know Bob Dole as well as we know him. If they do, then those of us who would like to see Bob Dole be President know that the American people would choose wisely in that case. We recognize our partisanship in this matter, but I think even those who are on the other side of the aisle would acknowledge that the majority leader is a man of great character, judgment, and leadership skills that, frankly, are greater than most public servants who have the opportunity to represent people in this country. So I join with my colleague from Mississippi in paying tribute to the majority leader, and I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes this morning about a recommendation that has been made to the distinguished majority leader by a group of economists. I am talking about the proposal to cut income tax rates by 15 percent across-the-board. I know that some people will criticize this as political, but, frankly, in a representative democracy, the whole idea is to do things that the people want. I submit that if the people respond positively to this idea, clearly, it will have been the right thing to do. I believe people will respond positively because they have been asking for tax relief. The point of an across-the-board cut in tax rates is that it helps to stimulate the economy. Therefore, it is the most productive in terms of providing for economic growth, which helps all people. This is the kind of rate cut that produced more revenues to the Treasury under the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. This is the kind of tax rate cut that has been proposed and that I submit Majority Leader Dole would be wise to call for in his Presidential campaign. John F. Kennedy, of course, said back in 1962, ``A rising tide lifts all boats,'' to illustrate the point that across-the-board tax rate cuts help everybody. It helps the economy grow. Therefore, it does not matter what place you are on the ladder of economic progress, whether in the middle, or at the high end, or even at the lower end of the ladder; a growing economy helps everyone because it provides for more job opportunities, it provides for more payment to workers, more opportunities for savings and investment and expansion of the economy, which, as a result, helps everyone. But the point that I want to briefly make this morning is that it also helps us in dealing with the problem of reducing the Federal budget deficit and providing for the needs of Government. There is a paradox in economics that provides that, up to a certain point, actually reducing tax rates can provide more revenues to the Treasury. In the brief minute or two I have this morning, let me address that a little bit more. Obviously, there are two tax rates that produce no tax revenues to the Treasury. One is 0 and the other is 100. The point of mentioning 100 is to make the point that you can tax people too much--to the point that they will stop doing the things that produce the revenue that would then come into the Treasury. When you have tax rates of 90 percent or 80 percent or 70 percent, even, people find other things to do with their money. Either they do not work as hard and generate the income, or they find ways to shelter that income or defer it so that they do not have to pay taxes. The result is that tax increases do not produce the revenues they are projected to produce. That fact is true of the 1993 Clinton tax increase. People just changed their behavior as a result of the increased taxes. The same thing is true when tax rates are cut. When John F. Kennedy did it and when Ronald Reagan did it, revenues to the Treasury increased dramatically. It is like having a weekend sale. The merchant does not do this to lose money when he reduces the price on his goods. He reduces the price on the goods in order to attract more people to buy more goods so that even though he is making less per item, he makes far more in gross terms. That is exactly what happens when the Government reduces marginal tax rates, and what economists predict would happen if there were an across-the-board 15-percent tax reduction in our income tax rate. Under the Reagan administration, Mr. President, not only did interest rates fall as a result of the tax rate cut, but our economy grew for the longest sustained period in the peacetime history of the United States and, importantly, revenues to the Treasury increased between $60 billion and $80 billion a year. In the John F. Kennedy administration, income tax rates were reduced from a range of 20 to 91 percent to a range of 14 to 70 percent. Revenues to the Treasury rose 66 percent by 1969. In the States it was the same thing. During former Governor DuPont's administration in Delaware, in 1979, the top rate was cut from 19.8 percent to 7.1 percent. By 1993, State revenues had doubled and employment increased by 36 percent. Welfare caseloads fell by 40 percent. The point I am trying to make here is really very simple. In this time when we are all focused on deficit reduction, there are a lot of people who are deathly afraid of reducing tax rates on the assumption that it will reduce revenues to the Treasury. In fact, they even propose increasing tax rates. But the fact of the matter is that at least certain kinds of rate reductions--and this certainly includes across-the-board marginal income tax rate reductions--have resulted in increased revenues to the Treasury every time they have been accomplished. Those who say that we cannot afford a tax cut if we are serious about balancing the budget seem to view the economy as a zero-sum game. It is, in my view, a very cynical view that seeks to divide people, baiting them with envy and greed; no one can ever do better unless someone else does worse. It is like trying to divide a pie into ever more slices, satisfying no one in the process. Some of us think that we should try to make every American better off. We want to grow the economy--bake a bigger pie--so that all Americans can do better. That is what happened during the Reagan years. I noted some of the benefits of the Reagan tax cuts earlier in my remarks, but other good things happened as well. Real median family income grew every year but one between 1982 and 1989, rising $4,564 or 12.6 percent. Inflation virtually disappeared by 1986, protecting all Americans, particularly senior citizens on fixed incomes. And for those who suggest that it was the wealthiest who benefited most from tax cuts, I would point out that from 1981 through 1988, the share of all income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of all taxpayers rose each and every year from a low of 17.89 percent to a high of 27.58 percent. The high-tax policies of the 1990's have had just the opposite effect. Real median family income has declined $2,108 or 5.2 percent. Since the beginning of 1995, the economy has only grown at a yearly rate of 1.6 percent. More than a third of the new jobs created have gone, not to people just entering the work force or getting off of welfare, but to people who are taking an extra job just to make ends meet. Interest rates, which declined during most of 1995, are rising again after President Clinton vetoed the balanced budget and tax relief package that Congress sent him. Until Congress forced President Clinton to get serious about limiting Federal spending last year, deficits were forecast at $200 billion a year for the foreseeable future--despite record high taxes. What that proves is that sluggish economic growth and overspending, not a lack of revenue, are the real causes of the Nation's deficit problem. Mr. President, I would note that revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product [GDP] have actually fluctuated around a relatively narrow band--18 to 20 percent of GDP--for the last 40 years. Revenues amounted to about 19 percent of GDP when the top marginal income tax rate was in the 90 percent range in the 1950's. They amounted to just under 19 percent when the top marginal rate was in the 28 percent range in the 1980's. Why the consistency? Because tax rate changes have a greater effect on how well or how poorly the economy performs than on the amount of revenue that flows to the Treasury relative to GDP. In other words, how Congress taxes is more important than how much it can tax. The key is whether tax policy fosters economic growth and opportunity, measured in terms of GDP, or results in a smaller and weaker economy. Nineteen percent of a larger GDP represents more revenue to the Treasury and is, therefore, preferable to 19 percent of a smaller GDP. Mr. President, I want to conclude by contrasting the proposed across- the-board income tax rate cut with some of the other tax cut proposals that have been offered. As Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform said recently, paraphrasing Mae West, ``All tax cuts are good tax cuts, and even bad tax cuts are good tax cuts.'' In other words, just about anything we do to leave more money in people's pockets is a good thing. I very strongly supported the $500-per-child tax credit that was in the Balanced Budget Act last year. I cosponsored the proposal with Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia when I served in the House of Representatives with him in 1994. I would also support President Clinton's proposed education credit. But the $500-per-child credit and the education credit, unlike the proposed 15-percent across-the-board rate cut, would help only families with children or those in pursuit of a college education. The benefit of the across-the-board approach is that it reaches out to all Americans. Everyone would benefit. It says to the American people that we trust them to spend their money in ways that are best for themselves and their families. It would allow people to keep more of every dollar earned from their extra effort in the work place--no matter what kind of work they do--and from their extra investment--no matter what kind of investment they make. The broad nature of the tax cut, applying to all forms of work and investment, ensures that effort and capital are steered to the most productive activities in the economy instead of those activities that the Government deems most important through targeted tax credits or deductions. It is also the fairest way to provide tax relief. Everyone would be treated the same; tax rates would be cut 15 percent across the board, boosting take-home pay and relieving a major source of anxiety among people with middle and low incomes. Notably, a 15-percent rate cut would take revenues as a share of GDP back to where they were before Clinton took office--to 19.2 percent from the current 20.4 percent--effectively repealing the Clinton tax increase. Therefore, I think it would be a very wise thing for Majority Leader Bob Dole in his quest for the Presidency--and, frankly, for President Bill Clinton, as he seeks reelection--to embrace the concept that the American people could not only do well individually as a result of a reduction in income tax rates, but also that this would help to stimulate the economy and, ironically, or paradoxically, as I said, end up providing more revenues to the Treasury to help us with deficit reduction and the financing of all of the important things that we want to finance as a result of the Federal Government's efforts. Mr. President, I hope that as this debate continues, we will be able to discuss the concept of tax rate reductions. I hope to cosponsor legislation to that effect, and I hope we can begin the debate with the American people so that a consensus can be developed and, as a result of this election, we will have a mandate to reduce marginal income tax rates across the board.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to permit duty-free treatment for certain structures, parts, and components provided by the Max Planck Institute to University of Arizona's submillimeter telescope and provided by the Arcetri Astrophysical Observatory for the University of Arizona's large binocular telescope [LBT]. This legislation will help ensure the continued progress of astronomy in the United States and in Arizona. To advance the potential of submillimeter astronomy, the Steward Observatory of the University of Arizona and the Max Planck Institute in Germany are collaborating on the construction and operation of a dedicated submillimeter telescope in Arizona. The University of Arizona has unique capabilities in large glass optics, instrumentation, and mountaintop sites; the Max Planck Institute in development of large, precise radio astronomy telescopes. The SMT is the highest accuracy radio telescope ever built. And the SMT project has fostered an effective collaboration between an American University, a German national research laboratory and high-technology industries in both Germany and America. The Tariff and Trade Act of 1984 provided a waiver of tariffs for equipment and materials provided by the Max Planck Institute. An extension of the waiver is necessary to further develop custom instrumentation not available from any U.S. producer. An extension of the waiver is also necessary to allow the calibration and repair of the equipment required by the project. In addition, the University of Arizona has collaborated with Arcetri Astrophysical Observatory in Florence, Italy, to build the large binocular telescope. The scientific goals of the LBT include studies of the early universe and the formation of galaxies more than 10 billion years ago. The very high sensitivity and spatial resolution for the LBT will make it the most powerful instrument in the world for this kind of astronomical research. This legislation will also provide duty-free treatment for components that cannot be obtained in the United States for construction of the University of Arizona's large binocular telescope. At a time when Federal budget constraints have made belt-tightening necessary, these tariff exemptions are important to the continued success of scientific research.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to permit duty-free treatment for certain structures, parts, and components provided by the Max Planck Institute to University of Arizona's submillimeter telescope and provided by the Arcetri Astrophysical Observatory for the University of Arizona's large binocular telescope [LBT]. This legislation will help ensure the continued progress of astronomy in the United States and in Arizona. To advance the potential of submillimeter astronomy, the Steward Observatory of the University of Arizona and the Max Planck Institute in Germany are collaborating on the construction and operation of a dedicated submillimeter telescope in Arizona. The University of Arizona has unique capabilities in large glass optics, instrumentation, and mountaintop sites; the Max Planck Institute in development of large, precise radio astronomy telescopes. The SMT is the highest accuracy radio telescope ever built. And the SMT project has fostered an effective collaboration between an American University, a German national research laboratory and high-technology industries in both Germany and America. The Tariff and Trade Act of 1984 provided a waiver of tariffs for equipment and materials provided by the Max Planck Institute. An extension of the waiver is necessary to further develop custom instrumentation not available from any U.S. producer. An extension of the waiver is also necessary to allow the calibration and repair of the equipment required by the project. In addition, the University of Arizona has collaborated with Arcetri Astrophysical Observatory in Florence, Italy, to build the large binocular telescope. The scientific goals of the LBT include studies of the early universe and the formation of galaxies more than 10 billion years ago. The very high sensitivity and spatial resolution for the LBT will make it the most powerful instrument in the world for this kind of astronomical research. This legislation will also provide duty-free treatment for components that cannot be obtained in the United States for construction of the University of Arizona's large binocular telescope. At a time when Federal budget constraints have made belt-tightening necessary, these tariff exemptions are important to the continued success of scientific research.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I yield myself such time from the time of Senator Thomas as I may consume. Mr. President, we are talking today about the balanced budget amendment that we will soon be voting on again. There have been several different kinds of comments made about the need for the balanced budget, probably the two most prominent being, No. 1, the fact that in the short-term we will all be financially better off if the Federal budget is in balance interest rates will immediately begin to come down. All economists agree that interest rates will drop once the market understands that we are going to balance the Federal budget. That 1-, 2-, or 2.7-percent drop in interest rates, depending on which economist you believe, means Americans will have more money to put in their pockets immediately. In my home State of Arizona, the average home mortgage is just under $100,000. The interest that would be saved as a result of balancing the budget for every Arizonan with that average home mortgage would amount to $2,655 every year--$2,655. This is real money. For the average student loan it is $547. So, if we here in the Congress can pass a balanced budget amendment and send that to the States for ratification, the markets will adjust, will lower interest rates, and all of us will benefit as a result of that, through immediate financial savings. There are many other ways this occurs. The Federal Government has borrowing costs which I will discuss here in a moment. Those borrowing costs are reduced. As a result, we do not have to pay as much in taxes to cover those borrowing costs. It applies all throughout the economy, both the private sector and the Government sector. Balancing the budget will reduce interest rates, and that will mean money in our pockets. That is an immediate benefit for all Americans, regardless of income status, regardless of where they live. It is very, very important. Second, Mr. President, the other primary argument about the balanced budget has been the valid observation that we owe our children and our grandchildren the promise of a future that will be as good for them as our lives have been for us. We want them to have as much opportunity as we have had. That will not be the case if we continue to run up the debt and then ask them to pay it in the future. It is very much like young people getting in over their heads with their credit cards. We know that credit card interest rates are pretty high. Soon after you have loaded up your credit card, you can hardly make the monthly payments. You have to sell one of the two cars you own. You have to maybe take out a second mortgage on the home, or in a case I know, someone had to sell their home to pay the interest accumulating on this debt. That is what we are asking our children and grandchildren to do if we keep increasing the Federal debt with annual Federal deficits. Until there is a balanced budget amendment this is not going to stop. How do we know that? Some of our colleagues who opposed the balanced budget amendment last year made the argument, ``If you just let us do it, we will do it. That is what we were elected to come here to do, to make the tough decisions.'' We said, ``All right, let's do it.'' For the first time in 26 years, Mr. President, we passed a balanced budget, on November 17, 1995. The problem is on December 7, 1995, President Clinton vetoed that balanced budget. Because of the impossibility of overriding his veto, we have not been able to agree upon a budget that would achieve balance. That is, until just 2 weeks ago, at which time the Republican Senate again passed a new budget that would be in balance after 6 years. This effort to ensure that our children and grandchildren have the same kind of future that we have had also has very real monetary consequences. I have a brandnew grandson, whose name is Jonathan. He owes the Federal Government $187,000. He is a year old. This is kind of a tough burden for him. That $187,000 is just to pay the interest on the Federal debt during his lifetime. That does not pay anything else. It does not pay for defense, for education, for health care, or for anything else; it just pays the interest on the debt. But that is how much he owes. It is unfair. One of the reasons that I ran for the U.S. Congress when I did was to try to ensure that when I finally left this world, I left it better off than I inherited it. I have now acquired a position of great honor and opportunity to try to do something about that commitment that I made. All of us have said the same thing in one way or another. If we are not committed enough to do something for these young children and grandchildren that we have, to guarantee that they have as good a future as we have had, then we are not doing our job. We understand that, without the constraints that are required to comply with the Constitution, we are not going to balance the Federal budget, and those kinds of obligations are going to continue to be imposed upon our children. I said in the beginning that those were the two primary arguments for the balanced budget amendment. I do not see how anybody can argue that they should not call for the adoption of the amendment. I wanted to focus on a different aspect of it that still relates to this question of interest payments because I think it puts into perspective how far out of whack this has become. I want to relate some figures on how much in the way of interest we are paying. What is the interest we are talking about again? This is interest on the accumulated $5 trillion-plus in Federal debt. Each year, we have a Federal budget deficit that adds to that debt and, therefore, adds to the interest. Here is what the interest payments now amount to. Compare this first with 1965, 30 years ago. The Federal Government in that year paid $8.6 billion in interest. I remember a couple of days ago when I was presiding, and the Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, who has been a very strong advocate of the balanced budget amendment and who, unfortunately, is going to be leaving the Senate at the end of this year, said--talking about the figure of $9 billion--``Back then, $9 billion was a lot of money.'' It reminded me of one of his predecessors who represented the State of Illinois, Everett Dirksen, who was famous for saying, ``A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking big money.'' Here is what this $9 billion in 1965 has come to. In 1995, 30 years later, instead of $9 billion in interest, the Government paid $232 billion in interest. In just 30 years, it went from $9 billion to $232 billion. What does that mean in terms of the obligation of the average family? In 1965, that interest cost of a little under $9 billion amounted to 17.6 percent of all individual income taxes paid. In 1995, the $232 billion in interest cost was over 30 percent of income taxes. In other words, just think about April 15 when you paid your tax bill. Almost one-third of that was interest on the Federal debt. What did the Federal Government get for that? What did we get for that? Absolutely nothing. That is just interest on the debt. It did not buy a single airplane for defense, it did not buy anything regarding health care or education or support for the elderly, or any other Government program that is of interest to the people of this country. It just paid the interest on the debt. Now, let us compare it to a couple items in the Federal budget. Let us compare it to national defense. In 1965, 30 years ago, interest costs were 16.9 percent of the outlays for defense in that year. But, in 1995, this $232 billion in interest costs was almost 85 percent of all outlays for defense. In other words, here is the defense budget. Thirty years ago, we paid, in interest, about 17 percent of what we were paying for defense. Today, we pay, in interest, 85 percent of what we are paying for defense. In other words, it is almost getting up to the same amount that we pay for defense, which is the single largest component of our discretionary budget. So let us compare it to our discretionary spending. In 1965, interest costs were equal to 38.9 percent of all domestic discretionary spending. Domestic discretionary spending is the money we spend for agriculture, for subsidies, for health care, for defense, and all of the other things. But, in 1995, that interest cost was 92 percent of domestic discretionary spending. In other words, Mr. President, we paid almost as much in interest costs as we did for all of the domestic programs that were funded by the Federal Government. So, Mr. President, it is clear that this interest cost is huge, it is growing, it is not productive, and it takes money that could be spent for other things. As a result of reducing this interest expense, we would all be far better off, and it will not happen unless we pass an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would say to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee that I would love the opportunity to vote on both the proposal that Senator Dole has made and also the substitute that Senator Nunn would like to make. That is what this cloture vote is all about. If we do not vote for cloture we are not going to have that opportunity. Second, there is no difference in concept between the proposal of the Senator from Georgia and our proposal. We are not engaging in an anticipatory breach of the ABM Treaty with this bill. We provide two specific mechanisms, both of which are treaty compliant, to proceed. One of them is similar to that which the Senator from Georgia proposes. In his substitute he is suggesting that we have not one ground-based site but two. Under the current ABM Treaty that would be in violation of the treaty if we went forward to build that. So in his legislation he provides that we should seek an amendment to the treaty to accommodate this second site. Likewise, in the Dole bill, the bill before us today, it reads on page 9, line 8, ``In light of the findings in section 2 and the policy established in section 3 [in other words, that we should build a national missile defense system] the Congress urges the President to pursue high level discussions with the Russian Federation to achieve an agreement to amend the ABM Treaty''-- to allow the deployment of the system. We ask for the same thing. In other words, to the extent that we might go beyond what the ABM Treaty allows, the Senator from Georgia is correct to say that some of the things in the bill, if they were done--it is up to the President to decide whether they would be done--but if they were done those things could be considered beyond the scope of the ABM Treaty. In that event, we then ask the President to engage in the negotiations with the Russians to amend the treaty to permit it. In the event that the Russians would not agree to it, we then invoke a second provision of the ABM Treaty which specifically provides that the United States can give notice of withdrawal from the treaty if we determine it is in our interest to do so. We tried for an entire year of negotiations, whereas the ABM Treaty would allow us to withdraw within a period of only 6 months. We are not breaching the ABM Treaty. We are not even engaged in an anticipatory breach--in other words, a breach sometime in the future. We are simply saying that we are going to embark upon a course of action which will provide for the defense of the United States, and, if in the future some provision of that would not be consistent with the ABM Treaty then, (a), the President should try to negotiate amendments to the treaty just as the Nunn substitute provides; and (b), if that is not possible, then the United States can give notice of withdrawal from the treaty which the treaty itself provides. It is a little bit like the argument that someone does not like to amend the U.S. Constitution in some respect. They said the Constitution should not be amended. Of course, the Constitution has within it an explicit provision for amending it. It has been amended some 23 times now, or 24. I have lost track. The fact is we have amended the U.S. Constitution. The ABM Treaty has a provision for amendment of the ABM Treaty. Just because we want to do something that might be inconsistent with the current treaty does not mean that thereby we are in violation of the treaty, if we are able to amend the treaty or even if we give notice under the treaty that we are going to withdraw from it because it is in our national interest to do so. That is not a breach of the treaty. It is using the actual provisions of the treaty to further the interests of the United States. So, I certainly respect the judgment of the Senator from Georgia that we must be very cautious about how we proceed. We have to take into consideration how other nations might react, and certainly Russia is important in this regard. But, by the same token, we cannot fail to act, if something is in the interests of the United States, in anticipation that the Russians might not like it or that they might, as a consequence of what we do that is perfectly legal, begin to violate some treaty that we believe to be in our best interests.