Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask to be notified when our side has 4 minutes of time remaining. Rather than waiting, I will make some remarks at this time. As Senator Nunn said, if others wish to speak, they should come to the floor immediately. Let me just respond to the key point that Senator Levin made because it is an important question. It is what the effect would be as a result of the United States developing and deploying a national missile defense--what the effect would be on the START I and START II Treaties. These are the two treaties that called for the United States and Russia to reduce our nuclear inventories. Under START I, we would bring the number of warheads down to, I believe, 6,000. And 6,000 warheads is still a lot of warheads. That is why the U.S. Senate has also ratified the START II Treaty, which would take it down below that to, I think, 3,500 warheads. And 3,500 warheads is still a lot of warheads, but the Russian Duma has not even ratified START II yet. The argument I find curious, and which I characterized as ``startling'' a while ago, is that the United States Senate would be deterred from acting to defend America on the basis that the Russians might violate the START I Treaty by refusing to reduce their warheads to the required 6,000 level under START I, if the United States should take action--which is perfectly legal--which does not violate any treaty whatsoever, but which provides for our defense against ballistic missile attack. I find that a very curious notion. But, more importantly, it does not seem to be a reason for the United States not to act. If we cannot act to defend ourselves because we believe that someone else will, as a consequence, violate a treaty that they have with us, then of what worth is that treaty? And of what worth would a follow-on treaty be? If people believe that the Russians are going to violate the START I Treaty if we develop a ballistic missile defense system--which is totally legal--then how valuable is it for the Russians to sign onto a START II Treaty, which would bring their warheads down even more? This is not a matter of either/or. I agree with my friends on this side who say it is desirable to bring those numbers of warheads down, to chop up the bombers, and to close the missile sites. That is a good thing. And it comes side by side with defending America. We still have a defense budget. We are still defending ourselves. Ballistic missile defense is one of those areas of defense that we have been providing for. One of my colleagues said we have already spent a lot of money in that area. It is true. All we are saying is let us spend just a little bit more money and provide an actual system that will defend America. It does not violate any treaties, and there is no reason for the Russians to be concerned that, as a result of this, they should begin violating treaties that they have signed with the United States. So it seems to me that is not a good argument to make against this bill. The bottom line here is this is the Defend America Act. The majority leader, Bob Dole, has asked that we be able to vote on this, and this afternoon we are going to have a vote to decide whether we are going to vote--in other words, a vote to invoke cloture--to stop debate for the time being and actually begin debate on the bill so we can eventually bring it to a vote up or down. Some of my colleagues would prefer not to vote on the bill. I would prefer that they vote either yes or no. They do not have to agree with us that the Defend America Act is a good idea. We ought to at least be able to get a vote on the bill. The vote that is going to occur this afternoon is not a vote on the Defend America Act. It is simply a vote on whether we should proceed to consider the Defend America Act. I hope that our Senate colleagues would at least agree that we can go that far even if they do not want to end up voting for it for the reasons articulated. Let me reserve the remainder of time on this side, and again urge Senators if they wish to speak on the bill, they need to get here because the original time was to expire at 12:30. We have extended that for 10 or 15 minutes. If Senators are not here to speak, we will close debate on the bill before long.

Mr. KYL. I guess what I am saying here is that the Russians themselves have made two contradictory arguments, both of which might be true. That is to say, No. 1, it is expensive to maintain these arsenals; No. 2, it is expensive to get rid of them. Probably they will do what is in their best interests regardless of what the United States does.

Mr. KYL. There are a lot of arguments made by Russians themselves that relate to the cost of continuing to maintain an arsenal. My guess would be that the Russians would at least want to draw their arsenal down to the levels called for in START I, because it is very expensive to maintain that degree of arsenal. There is also a counterargument made that they might not agree to the START II Treaty that we have already ratified because of the high cost of compliance in bringing those warheads down. The Senator from Georgia has been a leader in the United States in trying to provide assistance to the Russians to enable them to afford to do that. It is an expensive proposition.

Mr. KYL. I might say to the Senator that while that might be the right of the Russians, you have to consider what is in the national interest of Russia and the United States. We will both act in our national interests whatever we deem that to be.

Mr. KYL. I am happy to stop at this point and yield the floor.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I certainly agree with the goals as articulated by the Senator from Georgia. We have some slight difference as to how to get there, but he certainly has articulated the issue well. I ask at this point, if there is no one else who desires to speak, even though there be time remaining, if there is no other person desiring to speak other than the leaders, that it would be possible to yield back any remaining time and proceed to allow leaders to speak as they desire and then to hold the cloture vote at 2:15 or as soon thereafter as appropriate.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. If he is not here, Mr. President, I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi, Senator Cochran.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. KYL. Second, Mr. President, let me make three quick comments regarding the statements of the Senator from Nebraska. Then I am going to call on Senator Smith, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. There is an old saying that ``if you can't defeat something on the facts, then call it names.'' Of course, we are not debating something today called the Dole star wars bill. There is no such thing. We are debating something called the Defend America Act, which is a bill designed to provide a ballistic missile defense for the United States. To denigrate this as some kind of star wars concept is to totally misrepresent it, and that is not the way to try to debate an issue on the merits. Second, the Senator from Nebraska asked the question, why would the North Koreans want to develop a costly missile? Their troops are eating grass. Mr. President, it is hard to figure out why the North Koreans do what they do. But the fact is, our intelligence agencies report to us that they are indeed developing a missile. That is not contested by anyone. The only question is when that missile will be able to reach the United States. That is a fact. Third, there are questions about the cost and a lot of misrepresentations about the cost. As I discussed for about an hour last night, according to the CBO, the cost of the kind of system that we are talking about here is between $10 and $14 billion. So let us not be misrepresenting the cost. Finally, I think most startlingly, Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska made the argument that the Russians might violate the START agreements if we go forward and, therefore, we should not go forward. I find this a truly remarkable statement. We are being held hostage to Russian blackmail that they might violate a treaty they have with us and, therefore, we do not provide for our national defense? That is startling. What do treaties mean? Treaties are important. But so is providing for our national security by the acquisition of weapons both offensive and defensive. It seems to me, Mr. President, that we cannot be subjected to blackmail. The Russians have not even made this threat. It is Members of the United States Senate who assume that the Russians might violate treaties that they have signed if we go forward with the development of a national ballistic missile defense system. So it seems to me that this really demonstrates the paucity of arguments that exist against this bill when we have to stoop to making the argument the Russians might violate a treaty they have entered into with us and, therefore, we better not go forward. If that is all the treaties mean to the Russians, then I suggest we need both treaties and a ballistic missile defense system. With that, Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am standing in momentarily for Senator Dole. I will call on Senator Smith in just a moment. First, I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary, some three or four pages of a document entitled the ``National Missile Defense Options'' prepared in response to the House National Security Committee by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, dated July 31, 1995, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Certainly. I will add that to the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. KYL. Certainly.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that whatever time beyond the hour of 10:30 is taken in morning business be added on to the period of time for debate so that, on the Missile Defense Act, there is still a total of 2 hours equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 2:15.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, June 4, at 9:30 a.m., hearing room (SD- 406) on S. 1730, the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Improvement Act.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 4, 1996, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for a hearing on S. 1237, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1995, during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 4, 1996, at 10 a.m.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent for the Subcommittee on International Trade to hold a hearing on the permanent extension of most-favored-nation [MFN] trade status to Romania on Tuesday, June 4, 1996, beginning at 2 p.m. in room SD-215.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this makes the point that the Joint Chiefs were misled. They were basically told that the administration was not going to go forward with certain plans, that there were not changes being contemplated to the ABM Treaty that, in fact, were being contemplated, that there were not limitations being placed upon certain of our systems. And as a result, they could clearly have been lulled into the belief that we did not need the kind of Missile Defense Act we are talking about now. I suggest that if all of the information is known to all of the people concerned, we will be much more serious about going forward with a missile defense plan. Finally with respect to this point, I note that the President himself has recently begun to talk about the need for missile defense. Some say that this is a political reaction to Bob Dole's leadership on the issue. It may be. But I will acknowledge that the President, as well as the rest of us, is interested in defending the American people. Whichever is the case, the President has acknowledged the threat. So we are only arguing about exactly when the threat will materialize. The President's position is that we might be able to wait a little longer and deploy a system a little after 2003 and still get by. He may be right. But my point is, is it worth the risk? When we have the technology, we have spent the money and--as a matter of fact, if we talk about a sea-based system, we have the aegis cruisers, and they have the radars, and they already have the satellites in space which can detect a launch, and we have basically half of the standard missile on these ships. We simply have to put the second part of the missile on with the components on the tip of it to enable us to hone in and guide the missile to be intercepted. That is all we are talking about developing with respect to that system. We have proceeded significantly along with the development of the THAAD program. No, Mr. President, the problem is that if there is a problem with deploying these systems, it is, as Senator Thurmond said earlier, that the administration, year after year after year--all 4 years--has submitted budgets where the administration has sought to reduce the amount of expenditure for missile defense, and specifically for the national missile defense. They have been willing to go forward with the tactical missile defense, to a degree, but not to the degree called for in the legislation we have passed and the President has signed. He does not want to go forward with a national missile defense. That is perplexing. I do not understand how it is all right to help our friends, like the Israelis, defend themselves--and there has been money there in the last several years to help the Israelis build the Arrow Missile Defense System to protect their homeland and people. So I do not understand why U.S. tax dollars should be spent on that system and not on a similar system to protect the United States. I am all for the development of the Arrow. I have been to Israel and have seen the threat they live under from their neighbors that would do them harm. They understand the need for a missile defense, and we have been willing to support their national missile defense system. Why is the President of the United States willing to spend money so that the people of Israel will not be killed in a missile attack, and he is not willing to spend money so that the people of the United States are free from missile attack? I do not understand that. Mr. President, as I said, reasonable people can differ about whether the threat will occur in the year 2003, 2007, or in the year 2000. But you cannot argue about the fact that the threat will be there, and, in some respects, it already is. So if we are willing to spend that money and to make that commitment to defend the people of other countries, why are we not willing to make that commitment to defend the people of the United States? Let me make this point. When pollsters ask Americans around the country how we would defend ourselves against a missile attack, Americans answer with a variety of very innovative responses. ``Well, we will shoot them down.'' How? ``Well, we have airplanes with missiles that will shoot them down. Well, we will shoot them down with our own missiles. Well, we have lasers in space. I am not sure how, but we will shoot them down.'' The fact is that we do not have any way of shooting them down. We are totally vulnerable to an attack. Do you know what about 80 percent of the Americans who respond to these surveys say? They say that is absolutely irresponsible and we have to do something about it today to turn this situation around-- today. They are shocked to know that we are vulnerable to missile attack. I guess it is our own fault for not making the point to people that we do not have a defense. It is particularly shocking, I guess, for not correcting this deficiency given the fact that the Persian Gulf war was 5 years ago and we have let 5 years go by without making very much progress toward the development and deployment of these defenses. I would have thought that after 28 Americans were killed in one Scud attack and after Israel was attacked by Iraq that the United States would finally have committed itself to building missile defenses to protect the United States and the people of the United States. We kind of frittered away our money and time. Now we have other nations in addition to Iraq that are very aggressively and very actively developing these weapons. Yet, we do not seem to be any further down the road toward making a commitment to develop and deploy the system. As I said, if you look at every other weapons system that we bought, let us say the F-15, or the F-16, or the carrier, the Trident submarine, you name it, the only way we have of being able to get it done is say we want to buy this weapon, we want to have it done by x date, therefore, we are going to appropriate the money necessary to achieve deployment by that date, and we ask the administration to come forward with a plan which lays out the specific deadlines for a specific timetable by which the tests are going to be conducted, and eventually we will get to the point of deployment. Usually it takes a little longer than we predicted, but we try to set those dates up so that we actually achieve the objective. That is what we are asking for in this legislation by setting a specific date. We are saying, we know we will never get there if we keep moving the goalposts and if we never set an actual date for deployment, so let us set the day and let us get on with it. If we do not do that, we will never get there. That is why I say it really is a bogus argument to talk about the threat, because everyone acknowledges there is a threat. They simply argue about when it will really surface. I submit that it is not worth playing around with that question, particularly since we know that 5 years have elapsed since Americans have been killed by a ballistic missile. There is another subargument here that I really want to deal with very briefly, and since Senator Nunn is not here I am going to go forward. This is the argument that deterrence is sufficient and we already have the ability to retaliate against someone who launches a missile, and that ought to be enough to deter them from ever doing so. I ask the question again. Given the fact that the United States pulled out of Iraq and did not use any kind of weapon of mass destruction against Saddam Hussein, did not even destroy his palace guard at the conclusion of that war, and given the fact that President Bush himself made the point on several occasions that we mean no harm to the Iraqi people, we only wish that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not act irresponsibly and that we would try to defeat it--given those facts, is it credible to assume that the United States in the future will use a nuclear weapon or a chemical or biological weapon on the people of a country whose leaders attack us, or who threaten to attack us, or who threaten to attack, say, the French, the British, the Israelis, or the Russians? Is that a credible deterrent? Are we going to deter Mu'ammar Qadhafi, or the leaders of Korea, or some other country? I do not think so. I think that deterrence argument, if it did work in the cold war-- there is some dispute about it--is not the kind of argument that is going to work today against countries that frankly do not think we will use the deterrent and do not care, in any event. The risk of failure on relying on deterrence is simply too great to rely on that doctrine today. It will not work against the kind of nations that mean us harm today. It is not credible. I note the fact that Secretary Perry himself, in the Nuclear Posture Review on September 20, 1994, made the following comment, with which I totally agree. We now have an opportunity to create a new relationship, based not on MAD, not on Mutual Assured Destruction, but rather on another acronym, MAS, or Mutual Assured Safety. What he was talking about was the ability to deter aggressor nations based upon the fact that we can defend ourselves, and, therefore, there was no point in their developing the means to attack us, or initiating such an attack; that because we had the ability to defend ourselves, it would make it impossible for them to succeed, and, therefore, there would be no point in their expending the funds to do so. That is the theory of defensive deterrence, and it really is the only kind of defense that will exist against the kind of threat that we face today. When we were arrayed against the Soviet Union, it might have been a different matter, though that is questionable. But it is certainly not the case today. I had indicated when we talked about the START II Treaty that there were some people I would quote. Let me do that since I have the time, because this is the final argument, and that is, we are kind of playing with fire. We do not want to do anything that would disturb the Russians, and it could be that they would take actions that we would be sorry for if we did anything to anger them. Clearly, at this point in time, only 3 weeks or so away from the Russian elections, our eyes are turned toward Russia because we understand that some very irresponsible people could be elected and lead the Russian State. That would be a real shame. None of us want to do that. All of us are hoping for the election of very responsible people to lead the Russian nation, people with whom we can work in the future and continue to work on defense matters together, because we mean no harm to them. They should know that. We wish them well, and we hope they share that feeling and, therefore, engage with us in those kind of agreements that demonstrate the desire for peaceful nations to proceed along the path of peace and eliminate the kind of weapons of mass destruction that populate the world today. That is why we hope very much that they continue to abide by treaties like the START I Treaty and that they would ratify the START II Treaty to further bring down the number of dangerous weapons in the world. But here is what some of the Russians themselves have said with respect to the probability of their actions with respect to the ABM Treaty. Alexi Arbatov, Deputy Chair of the Russian State Duma Defense Committee, complained that the loss of MIRV'd missile capability resulting from START II was a critical reason for them to be concerned with the START II Treaty. He stated that the Russians ``cannot economically fill the gap with single warheads; it's too costly.'' He proposed developing a protocol that lowered START II warhead ceilings to relieve their economic difficulties with the treaty. In other words, what he was saying was that ``it is going to be awfully expensive for us to bring down our warheads to the level called for in the START II Treaty. You all may be able to afford it in the United States. We can't. So let us not bring them down quite so far.'' Well, it may be that they will have a hard time doing that, but if they do not adopt the START II Treaty, it will be for reasons of economics, as he pointed out, not because the United States has suggested the need to look at an outmoded ABM Treaty which previous Russian Governments have been willing to look at themselves. U.S. Ambassador Brooks predicted the Russians will be forced to go well below START I levels with or without START II for economic reasons. He was actually proposing a slightly different argument related to economics. He was saying the Russians are going to have to proceed with START I and maybe even START II limits in the long run because it is so expensive to maintain them, and while in the short run our thought may have been correct, Ambassador Brooks is probably correct with respect to the long run. It is in both of our interests in the long run to save money by not having to maintain these expensive stockpiles. It costs money to dismantle them initially. That is why people like Senator Nunn and others have been responsible for proposing U.S. assistance to enable the Russians to bring down their stockpiles. It is for economic reasons that the Russians will find it impossible to continue to maintain this high level of stockpile. It does not have anything to do with the ABM Treaty. Neither the United States nor Russia will have the capacity to enter into another arms race, I suspect, whether or not we made modifications to the ABM Treaty. Clearly, with respect to other nations like China, the START I and START II Treaties do not even apply here. So though some say we should not even begin to change the ABM Treaty because of the Russian response, I would counter by saying: What about the Chinese? What about other countries that are not even involved in the START I or START II Treaty? Clearly, deploying this, or beginning to talk about amending the ABM Treaty so we deploy an effective defense system is in the national defense interest of the United States and we should not be deterred from proceeding with that step simply because there may be some who contend that the Russians will be unhappy and therefore there would be a reaction against us. Mr. President, since I have other time, let me proceed with one final point, and then I would be happy to yield to anybody else who would like to speak. What we are talking about here, for those who might not have been with us at the very beginning, is a very modest--very modest--first step. It is called the Defend America Act. It was brought to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bob Dole. It is true that he has made a political issue of this but only because the American people have been shocked to find out that the United States is undefended against a ballistic missile attack. That is why Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, the Republican Presidential nominee, has said it is important for us to get on with the job of ultimately developing and deploying a system that could defend the United States, at least in a modest way, against certain kinds of limited attack. So the Defend America Act that we have before us is a very modest first step toward that end. It is not the space shield that some people would like to talk about. It is not a hugely expensive kind of project that CBO has said we could develop. Yes, we could, but that is not what this is. It is really a very modest attempt, and it is important for the Senate, I think, to begin this debate and, hopefully, to have a vote on this act in the relatively near future. The House of Representatives was scheduled to take this up just before the Memorial Day recess and did not do so at that time, passing the budget instead. But I am hopeful, too, that the House of Representatives will take up the Defend America Act very soon. The important thing for the American people to know is that the Senate will not be able to vote on this act unless 60 Members of the Senate agree, because of a procedure that we have here which says that anybody can object to bringing up a bill and, if they do, it takes 60 Senators then to have a vote on it--60 Senators have to agree. That is called invoking cloture. Tomorrow afternoon at 2:15, we are going to have a vote to invoke cloture, that is to say, to stop this debate that has been going on and to have a vote on proceeding with a vote on the bill. There will still be an opportunity to further debate the bill after that, but then we would have a vote before the end of the week on the Defend America Act. This will be the last chance that Majority Leader Bob Dole has to bring this act up during his time in the Senate. I think it is important even for those people who do not necessarily agree with the Defend America Act, who for some reason want to support the President of the United States in his opposition to it. Maybe for political reasons they want to vote against it because it would hurt Bob Dole and help Bill Clinton. I can understand all of those things even though I think it would be irrational to vote against it for purely political reasons. But whatever reasons my colleagues might have for ultimately voting against it, I find it hard to understand why any of them would oppose having a vote on it. What are they afraid of? Mr. President, what are they afraid of? Why would Members of this body--and specifically now I am talking about Democrats, since I believe all the Republicans will support the cloture vote, will support taking a vote on the Defend America Act. Not all Republicans probably will vote for it in the end, although most will. But why would Democrats almost to a person oppose even taking a vote on this bill? Why? I can think of only one reason, and it is not a pleasant thought. That one reason is politics. I read the Defend America Act. There is nothing in there that every one of us does not believe, with the possible exception of the actual deployment by the year 2003. I have discussed the reasons why I think 2003 is a good date. Now, others may disagree. They have the right to express that disagreement by voting against the bill. Even though they may agree with everything else in it, they might not like that, so they want to vote against it. They have the right to vote against it. We would still be debating for another day or day and a half after we invoke cloture, so by the end of this week we could have a vote on this bill. Now, why would colleagues not even let us vote on the bill? Why would they say: No; Bob Dole, you cannot have a vote? Is it because they do not want Americans to be free from ballistic missile attack? I do not think so. I do not think there is a person here who believes that. I can only think of one reason, Mr. President, and that is to deny Bob Dole the right to have a vote on his bill. Now, I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, who have stood in this Chamber and who have stood in receptions and dinners and other fora to laud Bob Dole and pay tribute to him for the long service that he has given to our country, most recently in the Senate, but before that in the House and, of course, serving in our military, I appeal to all of my colleagues who have genuinely expressed their appreciation for Bob Dole's service, Democrats and Republicans alike, recognizing that whether he is to be the President of the United States or not, he is to be respected as a strong national leader who for years has done a lot of good things for this country--and nobody believes more strongly in the defense of the United States than Bob Dole--I would urge those colleagues of mine, Democrats and Republicans alike, to just stop and think and see if it is not within their heart to at least give him a vote on his bill. They can then vote against it, and he will understand those who have legitimate reasons for voting against it. But I think what he would find very hard to believe is that his colleagues would not even let him have a vote on this important matter that, after all, is not that important to him personally or politically but is very important to the American people. Bob Dole knows how important it is that we provide for our national defense. I will just conclude with this point. I have mentioned the Persian Gulf war many times, Mr. President. But after that Persian Gulf war was over and Dick Cheney and President Bush and Colin Powell and Norm Schwarzkopf were all given great kudos for winning the Persian Gulf war, what did they say? Well, most of them said it was not us that did it, obviously; it was the men and women we had trained so well that did the job. Of course, they were right. But Dick Cheney said one additional thing, and I will never forget it because he is a very reflective person. He said that it was not me, it was not us that won this war. It was the people 10 and 15 years ago who made the decision then to invest in the kind of weaponry and training that enabled our people to win today. They could not have foreseen the uses to which these weapons would be put. They had to fight those who said that they were a waste of money at the time, that they cost too much, that they might not work, that they were not necessary, that there was no threat. They had to stand up in the face of all of those arguments and have the courage of their conviction that someday, somewhere the United States might need that kind of weaponry to defend itself and its interests and it would be important for the men and women that we ask to go in harm's way that we give them the very best to protect themselves. Dick Cheney said we really owe this victory of the Persian Gulf war to the people who were in the Congress and who were in the administrations at that time, who made the tough decisions to make the investment to build these things so that when we needed them they would be there, even though no one could predict when or where or under what circumstances that would be. Mr. President, I am saying the same thing today. We will hear all of the arguments: Well, it may not work. Well, we do not know even who it is going to be used against. Well, we are not sure that the threat is here yet or even when there is going to be a threat. Well, we know there will be a threat, but it probably will not be for a while yet. We can take a chance. We have to stand up today just like those people did 10 and 15 years before Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense and be courageous enough to make the investment to protect not only the American people but also our forces deployed abroad and our allies, but most specifically the American people. That is what the Defend America Act is all about, so that 10 or 15 years from now, or 7 or 8 or 9 years from now when we have been able to thwart some kind of attack by an aggressor and people are patting everyone on the back saying job well done, those people will look back on the Congress of today and say, well, actually, they were the ones, those people back in 1996 who had the courage to go forward with the system, they were the ones to whom we owe our appreciation and perhaps our lives. Do we have the courage to make that kind of commitment today, at a very small, relative, expense, $1 or $2 billion a year out of a $265 billion defense budget, for maybe 10 years? That is not too high a price to pay for the lives of American people. So I ask my colleagues when we have this cloture vote tomorrow at 2:15, think about your children or grandchildren and your lives and the lives of those we will put in harm's way 10 or 15 years from now. Think about the legacy we want to leave. Think about the people we want to protect, about the interests that we want to project in the world. Think about what that takes. Also, think about the unfairness of not even allowing this bill to come to a vote, and think about the final tribute that you can pay to a great man, whether you agree with him politically or not, Bob Dole, who, after all, has asked nothing more than to be allowed to have a vote on this piece of legislation. For those reasons, I hope my colleagues will join us in voting for cloture so we can have a vote on the Missile Defense Act sometime this week. exhibit 1 [From the Washington Times, May 31, 1996] White House Misled Joint Chiefs on ABM Treaty Talks (By Bill Gertz) Clinton administration officials misled the Joint Chiefs of Staff about efforts to reach an agreement with Russia at last month's summit on the complex issue of clarifying the Anti- Ballastic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Pentagon officials said. To prevent details from being disclosed to the press, the military service chiefs were not told in advance of the Moscow summit about a White House plan to hold detailed talks between the two presidents aimed at reaching a partial agreement on what short-range anti-missile defense systems are legal under the 1972 ABM Treaty, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Several days before the April 22 summit in Moscow, a Pentagon briefer, explaining the White House summit agenda for defense issues, told a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the issue of ABM theater missile defense (TMD) demarcation would not be brought up at meetings between President Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, or other defense officials, they said. ``At the [Joint Chiefs] meeting, the chiefs were told ABM- TMD demarcation will not be discussed at the summit,'' one official said. ``In fact that briefing was part of a deliberate deception plan on the part of the White House.'' The postsummit realization that some officials acted dishonestly with the military chiefs upset many in the Pentagon, particularly officials charged with developing missile defenses. ``Everybody was outraged,'' one official said. ``The only conclusion we could come to was that the White House negotiated with the Russians against its own military.'' A second official said a senior general who took part in the briefing, held in the secure Pentagon room known as ``the tank,'' specifically asked the briefer to clarify whether the issue would be raised. The general, concerned over Russian backtracking at earlier arms talks, was told missile defense would not be discussed at all, the official said. ``That conversation did occur, and that answer was received,'' a spokesman for the general said, asking that his name and service not be identified. The briefer, an aide to Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained that the only defense topics to be discussed at the summit would be the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, efforts to reach a nuclear test ban treaty, and chemical and biological weapons. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin said during a postsummit news conference on April 22 that they had discussed the ABM issue extensively. Mr. Clinton told reporters ``real progress'' was made on the ABM-TMD issue during five hours of talks. ``I'm convinced that if we do this in an open way that has a lot of integrity, I think we'll all be just fine on this and I think it will work out very well,'' Mr. Clinton said. A new round of ABM talks with Moscow on missile demarcation began May 20 at the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC) in Geneva. The White House official said the Russians presented proposals at the session with ``wrinkles''--positions-- opposed by U.S. negotiators. An earlier round of SCC talks broke off after they were deadlocked over Russian insistence on reversing agreements reached earlier by U.S. and Russian officials outside the formal talks. Russia announced in the earlier meeting that any Pentagon work on higher-speed regional missile defenses would be regarded by Moscow as illegal under the ABM Treaty until a second agreement is reached, a classified State Department cable said. Pentagon officials said a political agreement reached by U.S. and Russian officials at the summit will limit U.S. use of space-based sensors with advanced missile defenses, such as the Navy's wide-area system known as Upper Tier. It also would bar work on the Air Force's airborne laser gun, which will be capable of knocking down missiles shortly after takeoff.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for yielding but also for his leadership in this area. I think two of the people who we have most to thank for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate are our majority leader, Bob Dole, and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond. It is Senator Dole who wanted to ensure that before he left this body we had an opportunity to vote on and pass the Defend America Act. I agree with Senator Thurmond that our Senate colleagues ought to ensure that we have an opportunity to vote on this important measure by ensuring that we vote for cloture tomorrow when we have that vote. So I appreciate Senator Thurmond's leadership on this matter. Mr. President, before I proceed, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Ciechnowski, who is a fellow in my office, be allowed floor privileges during the pendency of this matter.

Mr. KYL. It would be unfortunate if the two were required to be tied together and we could not act on the National Missile Defense Act, in my view anyway.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 4; 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 then there be a period for morning business until the hour of 10:30 a.m. with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Hatch for 20 minutes, Senator Leahy for 15 minutes, Senator DeWine for 20 minutes, and Senator Grassley for 5 minutes. I further ask that at 10:30 the Senate resume the motion to proceed to S. 1635 and the time between 10:30 and 12:30 be equally divided in the usual form for debate on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1635, the Defend America Act; and further that the Senate recess between the hours of 12:30 and 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. For the information of all Senators, under a previous order, there will be a cloture vote tomorrow at 2:15 on the motion to proceed to the Defend America Act. Senators will be able to debate that motion to proceed between the hours of 10:30 and 12:30 on Tuesday. If cloture is invoked, it is hoped that the Senate will be able to debate S. 1635 and hopefully complete action on that bill. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate may consider any other legislative items that can be cleared.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator conducting this special order, and I appreciate his yielding time for me to speak on the matter of the balanced budget amendment. I think the case for the balanced budget amendment is now stronger than ever. Many of the critics of the balanced budget amendment in the past have argued that it was unnecessary, that if Congress only had the courage and the will, it could balance the budget and do so without the explicit mandate to do so in the Constitution. Well, Mr. President, the majority of Congress did finally muster the courage and the will on November 17 of last year when it passed the Balanced Budget Act. For the first time in 26 years, a majority in the Senate and the House approved a comprehensive plan to begin to limit Federal spending and to balance the Federal budget. But courage and will--and the votes of the majority in the Congress-- were not enough to overcome President Clinton's dogged determination to spend beyond the Nation's means. A President committed to big Government can always be counted on to use every tool at his disposal to thwart progress toward a balanced budget, to wear down the courage and the will of even the most steadfast of the deficit hawks. On April 25, for example, a majority in Congress concluded that it was easier to yield to President Clinton's demand for more spending than to fight for maximum deficit reduction. The omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996--a bill that I opposed--spent about $5 billion more than was originally intended. The Senate added another $5 billion to the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution 2 weeks ago to appease the President. Granted, the additional spending is offset by savings achieved in other areas. But if Congress had applied those offsets to deficit reduction instead of accommodating the President's demands for more spending, it would be that much easier to achieve the goal of balancing the budget. As it stands, it will be billions of dollars harder to achieve the goal of a balanced budget by the year 2002. The balanced budget amendment would correctly put the onus on the President in future situations like this. Instead of requiring Congress to muster a supermajority vote to limit Government spending--for example, to override President Clinton's veto of more frugal appropriations legislation--the balanced budget amendment would require the President to orchestrate a supermajority to vote for his proposals to add to the deficit. Mr. President, this illustrates the problem. It is far easier to spend money than it is to save it. While it will take a supermajority to save taxpayer money and balance the budget over President Clinton's veto, it takes only a simple majority to spend hard-earned tax dollars. In fact, because so much of the Federal budget is on autopilot, the Government can spend more every year without taking any vote at all. President Clinton uses this fact to his advantage. He claims to support a balanced budget, but resists every effort to accomplish that objective, knowing full well that inaction means that the Government will continue to grow and that Federal spending will continue to escalate. The fact is, despite claims to the contrary, President Clinton has never proposed a budget that would actually achieve balance. Speaking about the latest budget proposed by the administration, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, June O'Neill, said in testimony on April 17, ``Under CBO's more cautious economic and technical assumptions, the basic policies outlined in the President's budget would bring down the deficit to about $80 billion by the year 2002 instead of producing the budget surplus that the administration estimates.'' In other words, the President's most frugal budget would still result in an $80 billion budget deficit. So for all of the President's proclamations that he is now a true believer in a balanced budget, the fact is that he has yet to offer an honest plan to achieve balance by any date certain. By contrast, the budget that the Congress passed last year and the budget we just passed 2 weeks ago, do achieve balance and they do so while protecting the programs that are most important to the American people. We promised not to cut Medicare. We do not. Medicare spending would be allowed to grow at twice the rate of inflation. In fact, per beneficiary spending would grow from $5,200 in 1996 to $7,000 in 2002-- a 35-percent increase. We allow it to grow, but at a sustainable level. We provide a $500-per-child tax credit for every child under 18 years of age. We protect Social Security. We reform Medicaid and continue progress toward more market-oriented farm policies. Mr. President, there are good reasons to balance the budget. 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 the chance to live the American dream--to own their own homes. A 2-percent reduction on a typical 30-year mortgage in my State of Arizona would save homeowners over $230 a month. That is $2,655 each year. That same 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, 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, and reductions in interest rates are the first result of a balanced budget. With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to vote for the balanced budget amendment when it comes before the Senate later this week. It has been a long time in coming, and it is urgently needed. Before closing, I want to make one final point. Ideally, the balanced budget amendment should include a tax or spending limitation, or both, because it matters how we balance the budget. I have long advocated a spending limit as the best approach. The balanced budget spending limitation amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 3, which I introduced in January 1995, includes such a limitation. It would require a balanced budget and limit spending to 19 percent of the gross national product, which is roughly the level of revenue that the Federal Government has collected over the last 40 years. Limit spending and there is no need to consider tax increases. Congress would not be allowed to spend the additional revenue raised. Link Federal spending to economic growth, as measured by GNP, and an incentive is created for Congress to promote pro-growth economic policies. The more the economy grows, the more the Congress is allowed to spend, but always proportionate to the size of the economy. A tax limit is the next best approach, and that is why we have advocated a supermajority to raise taxes. The tax limitation amendment that I introduced earlier this year--an initiative the House just voted on on April 15--would require a two- thirds vote of each House of Congress to approve tax increases. It would make an important addition to the Constitution, whether or not the balanced budget amendment is approved, but it is particularly important if the balanced budget amendment does become part of our Constitution. I do not believe that the balanced budget amendment should become an excuse to raise taxes. That is why I believe it should be accompanied by either a spending limitation or a tax limitation. Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is no panacea. A constitutional spending or tax limitation must follow to ensure that the budget is balanced in the right way--by eliminating spending. But it is essential that we take this first important step and pass the balanced budget amendment when it comes before us this week. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and hope that we can adopt it and change the Constitution, that the States will ratify it, and that we will in fact require a balanced budget amendment requiring the Congress to maintain a balanced budget for our Federal Government. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.