Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the reason I wanted to address the Senate at this time is that having spent a few days in Arizona recently visiting with constituents, I think that I have learned something that is important for us to share as we continue this debate about the budget impasse and whether we are going to be able to reach an agreement on a balanced budget. What I have heard from my constituents is, they are as concerned about the other side of the equation, namely, the income side of the equation, as they are about the balancing of the budget by the saving money side of the equation. Specifically, in the context of the new report issued a couple of weeks ago by the so-called Kemp Commission, they are suggesting that we should turn more of our attention to how we raise our revenue as much as we do to how we save our revenue. The report, entitled ``Unleashing America's Potential,'' is the official name of the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform Report, the so-called Kemp Commission Report that was issued about 2 weeks ago of this past month. Jack Kemp, who is the chairman of that commission, traveled to Phoenix and gave a couple presentations to constituents of mine talking about this, and combined with other meetings I have attended, as I have said, the conclusion I have come to is that while my constituents are very interested in balancing the budget--and they have encouraged me to stay the course and continue to try to press the President to reach a meaningful balanced budget over 7 years--they have also concluded, as I have, that that may not be practicable right now, the President just may not be ready to make a budget deal, that the incentives are not there for him to reach an agreement. If that is so, what they are saying is, look at the other side of the equation, because there is another debate that is starting in this country about how to raise tax revenues, and that debate could have as much to do not only with how we balance the budget but also how we promote economic growth in this country. Today, very briefly, I want to talk about those two subjects. When a family sits down at the table and figures up how they can do better economically to send their child to college or to buy the new car they have to buy because the old one is pretty much on its last legs, or any other way try to figure how they will do better economically, they generally look at both sides of the equation. They say, ``Well, first of all, are we spending too much money? Can we save money? Are we going out to dinner too much? Are we going out to the movies too much? We can save some money. We can pinch some pennies.'' And they figure out how much they can save. That is what we are trying to do with our balanced budget. We are trying to say the Government can save a lot of money. Republicans are talking about saving hundreds of billions of dollars over a 7-year period, thus being able to balance our budget. The President would like to spend about $400 to $500 billion more than we would. That is why we have not been able to reach agreement with him on a balanced budget. Clearly, we ought to be looking at the side of the equation that tells us whether we are spending too much money. But the other side of the equation is how can we cause the economy to grow so that not only will families be better off, so that they will not have to rely upon the Government so much, but that they will actually be producing more in terms of productivity and therefore more revenue to the Federal Government with existing tax policy? We can actually talk just like a family talks about getting a raise or doing something in business so they can make more money, which is the other half of their fiscal health, I guess you can call it. The Federal Government can be doing the same thing. There are two ways to do that. There is a wrong way and a right way. The wrong way says let us raise tax rates. That will bring in more money to the Federal Treasury. We know the last tax increase, the biggest in this country's history, promoted by the President, did not raise income nearly as much as the administration projected because, of course, people changed their behavior. The most graphic example of that was the 1990 tax increase which included a much higher tax on luxury items, such as expensive cars and yachts and furs. And what happened to the people that were building the yachts? They went out of business, because people could not afford to pay the high tax so they stopped buying the yachts, as a result of which not only did the Federal Government not get the revenue but it actually had to pay money in terms of unemployment compensation because a lot of people lost their jobs because the yachts were not being made. Of course those people did not pay income taxes. So the bottom line was that even though the income tax rate was increased, the revenues did not increase at all. That is what we found in this last tax increase. Revenues to the Treasury have not increased nearly as much as the administration predicted. So we know that raising tax rates does not necessarily mean an increase in income. We also know that lowering tax rates can sometimes mean an increase in revenues to the Treasury. It is a little bit like the person who puts goods on sale about Christmastime. He does not do that to lose money. The retailer knows you can more than make up in volume what you lose in terms of the price cut. The same thing in taxes. You can reduce taxes and make more revenue for the Treasury because you have promoted commercial activity. As a matter of fact, in the preamble to this report, ``Unleashing America's Potential,'' former HUD Secretary and Representative, Jack Kemp, quotes John F. Kennedy who gave a speech before the Economic Club of New York in December 1962 and said this: In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. . . . The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus. That is John F. Kennedy in 1962, who also said ``A rising tide lifts all boats,'' meaning if we can get the economy growing again everyone will benefit, the entrepreneur who has had his tax rates cut as well as the person looking for a job who finds that there are jobs available because there is increased economic activity. It all has to do with injecting more capital into the private sector. John F. Kennedy made the point. Ronald Reagan made the point 20 years later. When tax rates were reduced in the Reagan administration, tax revenues for the Treasury were increased. That is what we are talking about here in the Kemp economic report, a fairer, simpler, single-rate tax that would promote economic growth and opportunity and job creation because it would provide the incentive for investment and savings rather than the incentive which we have today which is get as many deductions as you can by borrowing, because that is how you can, in effect, work the Tax Code. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle say, ``A tax cut for the rich is what you are talking about. Capital gains are enjoyed by rich people, so if you cut the capital gains tax that helps them.'' You know, nothing can be further from the truth. As Jack Kemp has pointed out, a capital gains tax cut benefits the poor more than the rich. The rich people do not have to sell their assets. What they can do is use their assets as collateral to borrow money and take an income tax deduction on the interest costs of borrowing and they still have their capital assets. So the rich people do not have to have a capital gains tax cut. They can use the capital as the equity to borrow money and then write off the interest on their income taxes. It is the poorer people in our society, who are looking for a job, or a better job, who can benefit by a capital gains tax cut. Not only do many families have small assets tied up that they would like to sell so they could utilize that money to send a child to school or invest or for whatever purpose--on rates now they are paying 28 percent if they sell that asset--but it is also the entrepreneurs who can free those assets up, take the money and invest it in something more productive, thus creating jobs, thus providing more opportunities for people at all levels of the economic spectrum in our society. So a tax cut can be beneficial, and it can benefit everybody in society, not simply those who are more well off. We are going to be introducing a constitutional amendment in the next day or two, a resolution which would provide that a two-thirds vote in each House of the Congress would be required to approve a tax rate increase. Representatives Barton and Shadegg are introducing a similar initiative on the House side. This is similar to constitutional amendments that have been proposed and sometimes passed in States around the country. As a matter of fact, my own State of Arizona has had such a proposition. The idea here is that tax increases have almost always been antithetical to growth, both in the private sector and to revenues of the Government. At least they have not been helpful. What the Kemp Commission suggested is that if we are going to have a single-rate, simple-income Tax Code--scrapping all of the existing code and going to a new, simpler, fairer single-rate code--we also need to have a mechanism in there to prevent the Congress from raising the rates after we get it into effect. I do not know whether the rate will be 17 or 19 percent or if it has to be 20 percent. But wherever that rate is set, it ought to stay there and it should not be going up over time. Of course that is the experience with Congress, because there are some, and some Presidents, who thought they could raise revenues by raising tax rates. I think I have demonstrated that is not true, but it has not stopped them from trying. So we would like to build in a two-thirds requirement to approve any tax rate increase. I think that resolution should be debated and considered, along with the recommendations of the Kemp Commission, as they are introduced as legislation in force over the next several months. So we are going to be introducing that legislation and I will be looking for support to get that moving. Mr. President, in the time I have remaining let me just note a couple of statistical things of interest, I think. I made the point that the tax cuts of the early 1980's demonstrated that we can increase revenues by cutting rates. The figures are as follows. Revenues increased from $599 billion in fiscal year 1981 to over $990 billion in fiscal year 1989, an increase of about 65 percent. High tax rates, on the other hand, of course we know discourage work, discourage production, savings and investment, so there is ultimately less economic activity to tax. Revenues amounted to about 19 percent of the gross national product when the top marginal income tax rate was in the 90 percent range in the 1950's. They amounted to just about the same 19 percent of GNP when the top marginal rate was in the 28 percent range in the 1980's, and again we are at about 19 percent of GNP in the 1970's, one of the longest postwar economic contractions in our history, and also at about 19 percent during the longest peacetime expansion, the 1980's. The point is, as a percentage of GNP, the tax revenues have been almost constant at 19 percent. You cannot increase revenues as a percent of GNP by increasing tax rates. But what you can do is decrease tax rates, increase the size of the GNP, and still be at 19 percent of GNP in terms of Federal revenues. But the total dollar amount, of course, is much higher because you have increased the size of the GNP. So the question is not just the percentage but a percentage of what? And a percentage of a much more vibrant and larger GNP at 19 percent obviously represents more tax dollars than 19 percent of a contracting and lower gross national product. So that is why we need to focus not just on the question of how much taxes are raised, or cut, but how they are raised. Of course, that is why we think it is important to have a very firm consensus in the Congress. In this case, we would like to have a two-thirds vote to approve any kind of tax increase. But more importantly, as the Kemp Commission recommends, we would like to have a reduction in tax rates, which we think will then produce a higher GNP and at least the same percent of revenues to the Federal Treasury. Let me just read one quotation. Then I will conclude this point from the Kemp Commission report. The roller coaster ride of tax policy in the past few decades has spent citizens' cynicism about the possibility of real long-term reform while fueling frustration with Washington. The initial optimism inspired by the low tax rate of the 1986 Tax Reform Act soured into disillusionment and anger when taxes subsequently were hiked two times in less than 7 years. The commission concludes that a two-thirds supermajority vote of Congress will earn American's confidence in the longevity, predictability, and stability of any new tax system. That is why, Mr. President, we think it is important to introduce this constitutional amendment to require two-thirds of Congress to support a tax increase for stability and for predictability so the American people have confidence that, if we go to a single rate, a simpler and fairer tax system, as the Kemp Commission recommends and we set a rate to produce the revenues that we are gathering today to the Federal Treasury, that Congress is not going to come along later and begin increasing that rate, because clearly, once most of the deductions and exemptions are eliminated, then taxpayers will no longer have those areas in which to retreat when rates are raised, which has been historically what has happened. Americans adjust their behavior in order not to pay taxes. They will buy municipal bonds so they do not have to pay taxes, for example. What we are saying, if we eliminate most of, or many of, those reductions, or exemptions, or credits, we do not want Congress and the President then to come along and raise the rates of income tax. That is why we think it is important to have a two-thirds majority. The Kemp Commission made the recommendations to eliminate the estate tax, to provide full deductibility of payroll taxes so that working Americans are not taxed on a tax. I think that would be a good idea. They encourage us to consider deductibility of charitable contributions and mortgage interest deductions. I think that debate needs to occur because that will affect the rate at which we end up having to set income tax, if we are going to have a single rate. The higher the deduction for mortgage interest, for example, the higher the single rate will have to be. We will have to consider what that tradeoff tells us in terms of actual tax policy. I am hopeful during this Presidential campaign that, armed with the Kemp Commission report, the candidates will get out there and debate this concept thoroughly, and that the American people will evaluate the different proposals. I am not an advocate of any specific proposal, but I think each of them has some merit. What we ought to be focusing on is the end result here of a simpler, fairer, predictable tax structure. If we can do that, then I am sure the specific decisions we make will fall into line. But the American people need to focus on that during the campaign, need to question the candidates, and need to come to some kind of conclusion as to what they want us to do. I am hoping that the next election will result in a mandate of sorts that in 1997 will cause us to come together and conclude that the American people have spoken in the election, they have supported candidates who generally believe in a certain approach to income tax reform, and then in 1997 we will begin the legislative process of fundamentally reforming our Tax Code. What I would like to do beginning this week is to begin the debate on the two-thirds supermajority because it would be the only constitutional amendment that would accompany the Kemp Commission recommendations. It is going to take longer to put into effect. We know by historical reference that constitutional amendments do not pass very quickly around here, and they should not. That is why we want to begin the debate now so that by the time we debate legislative changes in the Tax Code we will have been able to thoroughly air this constitutional proposal as well as perhaps pass the bill at the same time because clearly we would want to be able to restrict future Congresses' ability to raise taxes. Mr. President, the bottom line here is, yes, we need to focus on balancing the budget, on pinching pennies, and on saving in every way we can so we are not spending taxpayer dollars unwisely. That has been our focus all this year. We came close to getting a balanced budget agreement, but we did not quite do it. It would still be nice, if we could. Since we have not been able to, I think we have to focus equally on the other side. How do we get the economy growing again, moving forward, providing opportunity for growth, for job creation, for entrepreneurship, and for capital infusion for the economy. And the best way to do that is to follow the recommendations of the Kemp Commission--to give everybody a better opportunity by having a simpler, fairer, single-rate Tax Code. I look forward to this debate in the ensuing weeks and months. I hope many of my colleagues will join me in sponsorship of the constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to approve any income tax rate increases. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. We need to move forward as robustly as we can. I would be glad to.

Mr. KYL. I appreciate the Senator from Oklahoma bringing this issue up. I also know that the Senator in the chair, the Senator from New Hampshire, has a very strong voice speaking in favor of the development and deployment of the U.S. ballistic missile defense system, and I thank him.

Mr. KYL. Suppose it is 3 or 4 years from now and the North Koreans have a missile which has enough range now to finally hit the continental United States or even, Mr. President, Alaska or Hawaii-- maybe even just Japan, although presumably they are already there. North Korea clearly could get into Japan at this point. But suppose they had a missile that could get to Hawaii or Alaska, and they decide that they have had it with Taiwan, that they have threatened Taiwan long enough and it is time for them to incorporate Taiwan into China, not only in a rhetorical and political sense, but in an actual and military sense; therefore, they are going to threaten Taiwan with obliteration if it does not agree to become an effective part of the Chinese Government--they call themselves a state now, but they are not subject to the government in Beijing--suppose that China begins rattling its sword and says, ``We are now going to do this,'' and Taiwan has to go along. And the United States says, ``No. We have a treaty obligation, or we have obligations, in any event, if not rising to the level of a treaty, which have commitments to Taiwan to protect them in the event you attack.'' And the North Koreans say, or the Chinese, either one, says, ``Well, we have weapons that we know can reach Alaska and Hawaii, and you know that, too. So we would suggest that you not step in the way of China taking over Taiwan or step in the way of North Korea taking over South Korea,'' whatever the target between China and North Korea would be. What do you think the United States would do in that event, if we knew that if the Chinese taking over Taiwan or the North Koreans taking over South Korea could launch a missile against the United States and we could not stop them? Would we intervene militarily to protect South Korea against North Korea or Taiwan against China?

Mr. KYL. The nuclear capability.

Mr. KYL. It seems to me Saddam Hussein said the same thing. May I ask the Senator another question?

Mr. KYL. If the Senator from Oklahoma would like to respond to this: Is it not a fact that Saddam Hussein said that if he had had the bomb, he would have used it? I know Muammar Qadhafi said that, the leader of Libya.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me discuss in the context of the budget impasse, with which we are currently faced, both the Kemp Commission report and a few items with respect to this budget impasse, because, frankly, they represent two sides of the same coin. I do not think we have adequately identified the relationship between fundamental tax policy on the one hand, as addressed by the Kemp Commission, and on the other hand our efforts to balance the Federal budget. There are some people who spend, I think, most of their time focusing on the need for a balanced budget, and that is important, but that is only half of the equation. The other half is the revenue side of the equation. As we, as families, look at how we can continue to sustain our standard of living, to pay our bills, to make sure we come out right at the end of the year and to make decisions with respect to savings and investment, we really look at two separate things. First of all, we look at how much income we are making in the year, and then we also look at how much we are going to spend. Much of the balanced budget debate, Mr. President, has focused on the spending side at the Federal level, watching our pennies, how can we reduce the growth in spending each year, how can we begin to save money at the Federal Government level so that we get our budget into balance. We are focused on the savings side there, primarily. We also need to focus on the revenue side of it. For those of us who do not support new tax revenues, tax increases, we look at what kind of fundamental changes might not only produce a simpler and fairer tax system but also one which, ironically, might bring in more Federal revenue without raising taxes. One thing that the Senator from Utah did not mention but I know he knows is that for the last 40 or 50 years, whether we have had Republicans or Democrats in power, war or peace, good times or bad times economically, the Federal Government has collected about 19 percent of the gross national product in revenues to the Federal Treasury. In other words, what the American people are willing to contribute to the Government has remained virtually static as a relationship or percent of the gross national product or the gross domestic product. The reason is, as the Senator from Utah pointed out, because people make changes in their behavior to adjust to tax policy. When the Government decided to collect more revenue on raising the luxury tax on yachts, furs, and cars, it did not bring in more revenue, it brought in less, because people adjusted their behavior and they stopped buying the fancy fur coats and the yachts. The result was, not only did the Federal Government lose the revenue they made before, they did not make more revenue. People lost their jobs and paid less in the way of taxes. So changing tax rates up has not produced more revenue. By the same token, as John F. Kennedy learned in the early 1960's and as Ronald Reagan confirmed in the 1980's, a tax cut can actually produce just as much revenue as a higher level tax rate, because when tax rates are reduced, let us say capital gains tax, for example, the commercial intercourse which raises the money increases to the point that even with a lower rate, the Federal Government makes the same or more revenue. It is a lot like a sale at the holiday time. The retailer does not intend to lose money when he puts all of his items on sale. He knows he will make up in volume what he may lose in terms of the price for each particular item. That is much the way with tax rates. So we know reducing tax rates can actually produce more revenue. As we begin to look at how we are going to fundamentally revise the Tax Code, as the Kemp Commission did, I think we can anticipate that we can produce as much or more revenue with lower tax rates than is currently being produced with our current rates. That is why the Kemp Commission concludes that if we can provide for a simpler and fairer single rate kind of tax, and if we can eliminate, as it recommends, the tax on estates, the tax on capital gains and provide a deduction for the payroll tax, it is likely that the economy will grow substantially and that we can, in effect, at a relatively low income tax rate produce at least the same amount of revenues. That is why I think it is important, Mr. President, as we look at the opportunities for growth and economic expansion in the future, that we not just focus on balancing the Federal budget. That has been pretty much what we have been talking about in the last 3 or 4 months in the House and Senate, but it is really only half of the equation. The other half is how we can continue to produce at least as much revenue with lower tax rates, a simpler and fairer tax rate structure. I hope that debate will continue throughout the Presidential campaigns and actually take root in the congressional action that we will engage in in the early part of 1997. I said I want to talk about both subjects, because we not only have the issue of the Kemp Commission report and what it begins in terms of a debate--and I think that will dominate much of the Presidential campaign--but we also have the probable failure of the budget negotiations, and I want to present the second half of my remarks on that point. I think it is very unlikely now that there will be a budget agreement, because the congressional negotiators have conceded about all that they can concede, as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal noted, and the President has come very little distance toward the Republican position, with the result that it is not likely that there is going to be a successful conclusion to the budget talks. What does that mean for America for the next year? Why is it so important that we get to a balanced budget, that we do that in 7 years using honest numbers? What do we give up if we do not do that? And what are some of the myths that surround this debate? I think it is important for us to understand that, because then as we begin to point fingers of blame--and inevitably that will happen because we are not going to have a budget deal--at least our colleagues and the American people will appreciate the direction in which that finger ought to point. It will not come as any surprise that I think that finger needs to be pointed at the President. I am hoping if enough public pressure is applied to the White House that the President might relent and actually sit down and seriously negotiate with the Speaker and the majority leader. That really has not occurred up to this point. As the Wall Street Journal article noted on January 10, the Republicans have moved about $390 billion toward the President's position. He has moved about $8 billion further away from our position. The net result is about a $400 billion movement by the Republicans and very little movement by the President. So as I say, that represents very little opportunity, it seems to me, for a negotiated settlement at this point unless the President is willing to sit down and say, ``All right, you met me halfway, now I'll do the same.'' From the President's rhetoric, it does not appear he is willing to do that. So what is the consequence of not reaching a budget agreement this year? First of all, the four or five key areas of reform, of policy, which are embodied in the budget will not be translated into public policy, into legislation and, therefore, America will forgo the benefits of those policy changes over the course of the next year, and depending upon how the elections, perhaps for a long, long time. The President campaigned saying he would like to end welfare as we know it. The Senate passed a bill ending welfare as we know it with 87 votes, with Democrats and Republicans alike supporting welfare reform. Yet, the President vetoed the bill. So failing to arrive at a budget agreement will mean that we will not have reformed welfare and we will extend for another year a system which most people in this country believe is broken and is desperately in need of fixing; we will not have made the fundamental changes necessary to preserve and strengthen and save Medicare. Again, almost all of us recognize the need to do that, including the President. His ideas are, in many respects, not substantially different from ours. Nonetheless, he says that that is veto bait, and he does not support our fundamental reform of Medicare in order to save that program and keep it from going bankrupt, which his own trustees say will happen within the next 7 years unless we take action today. We need fundamental reforms like more choice to be offered to seniors, such as the Medisave account, physician-hospital networks, and other things, creating products, creating competition, and keeping the costs down. That is another consequence of the failure to reach a budget agreement. A third area is Medicaid. My State of Arizona has handled the Medicaid Program through a program it calls Access from virtually the very beginning, through waivers from the Federal Government to provide for managed care for those needy in our population that qualify for Medicare. Yet, this fundamental change will also fail to be put into effect. We will not be block granting the Medicaid funds because that is part of the overall budget reform. A fourth area is in the area of tax relief for working families. Again, the President had assured the American people that he wanted tax relief for working families. We provided for that in our budget. The CBO said we can do both tax relief and balance the Federal budget in 7 years. Yet, that, too, remains a substantial area of disagreement between the White House and congressional negotiators. So this, too, will fail to take place. Now, what does that mean? The President has been fond of saying that the Republican plan is a ``tax cut for the rich.'' Here is one thing that it means. The $500 per child tax credit means that in the State of Arizona over 47,000 low-income taxpayers will not have to pay any more income tax because that $500 child tax credit is just enough to take them from the position of taxpayer to the position of being able to deduct enough not to pay any taxes. It is about 3.5 million people in the United States. A tax cut for the rich, when 3.5 million low-income families in this country will literally have their income tax liability eliminated as a result of the Republican tax relief? That does not sound like tax cuts for the rich to me, Mr. President. That sounds like Republicans trying to do something for the low-income people in this country, who have children and who can really use that $500 child tax credit. In fact, about three-fourths of the tax relief benefits go to families making less than $75,000 a year. With two-income families in this country today, I do not think there are a lot of people in this country that think if you are making $75,000, you are necessarily rich. In any event, about three-fourths of the benefits go to families making less than that. I think, too, most people realize that since, as the Senator from Utah was just pointing out, the wealthy in our society pay most of the taxes, it is pretty hard to design a tax relief program that does not benefit those who pay most of the taxes, and that is the wealthier in society. Is that bad for people that are less well off? No, because it takes capital and it takes money to invest in our free enterprise economy in order to promote growth in businesses, to provide job opportunities. That is what John F. Kennedy referred to when he said that ``a rising tide lifts all boats.'' In other words, if you have the entrepreneurs, capitalists who can create a business and provide job opportunities, that helps everybody, including those looking for a job or greater job opportunities. So if we fail to reach a budget agreement, we will have failed to reform welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, our tax structure, and the Republican plan will clearly help the poor in our society. Also, we will fail to create about 2 million jobs, which is the estimate that can be created by capital gains tax relief. On the negative side, Mr. President, we will have consigned ourselves to yet another year of payment for more and more interest on the national debt--money that could be used to spend on other things. There will be $233 billion in interest payments on the Federal debt this year. It is money that could be spent on job training, education, or medical relief for needy citizens, or even tax relief, or reducing the Federal debt. But, no, that is money that we have to pay as interest on the ever-increasing debt. It is a lost and missed opportunity. Yet, it is one more year we will have to make those kinds of payments. It also means something else. My grandson, Jonathan, was born last year and, in effect, we handed Jonathan a credit card and said, ``You owe $187,000 to the Federal Government.'' That is how much he is going to have to pay in his lifetime to just pay the interest on the Federal debt that exists today. It does not count what he will have to pay for defense, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, education, or anything else. The debt is even getting bigger. That is just what he owes today as his share of interest on the national debt. It is not fair to Jonathan or our other two grandchildren, or all of the children and grandchildren in this country who, in effect, are being handed the credit card bill for what we run up in obligations. We also know that we are missing out on a wonderful opportunity that we can begin to pocket, literally beginning tomorrow. There are an awful lot of people in this country who have home mortgages, a student loan, or a car loan, and who appreciate what interest costs them. By most experts' analyses, if we are able to pass a balanced budget in the next 7 years, interest costs will go down at least 2 percent. One of the estimates is about 2.7 percent. DRI-McGraw/Hill, one of the economic forecasters, provided data to the Heritage Foundation, which made estimates. According to the estimates, that kind of rate reduction would, in my own State of Arizona, save the average Arizona homeowner about $2,655 every year. The average home mortgage in Arizona is a little over $98,000. Therefore, that kind of an interest rate reduction would save over $2,600 for the average Arizona homeowner. That is a lot of money, Mr. President. For the average student loan, it is like $547 in my State. This is money in your pocket, money that you would not have to pay if the Federal Government can balance the budget, because interest rates would go down if we do that. When interest rates go down, it reduces everybody's cost of living. Lawrence Lindsey, one of the Federal Reserve Board Governors, said, ``We can bring interest rates down to where people today could have 5.5 percent mortgage loans like we used to have.'' My first mortgage loan was 5\3/4\ percent. That may tell you how old I am, but it may also suggest what would happen because that is about 2.5 percent below where you could get a 30-year fixed-rate home mortgage for today. Think about what that would save in terms of money. So we are forgoing a tremendous opportunity for a higher standard of living, beginning today, beginning tomorrow, if we cannot commit to a balanced budget over the next 7 years. That is why, Mr. President, I think it is a very sad and disappointing thing that the President has not been willing to negotiate in good faith with the congressional Representatives. We are trying very hard to get him to commit to some of these fundamental reforms and agree to a 7-year balanced budget. We are forgoing so much that would improve our lives and our children's lives. It is not fair, it is not right, and it does not support the values that the President purports to support and which we have all committed ourselves to here. I think that, as a result, it will be a very sad day if we finally conclude that we are not able to reach a budget agreement with the President. In conclusion, Mr. President, as President Clinton gives his State of the Union speech tomorrow night--and I am sure challenges America to a greater tomorrow, since most of us believe that our best days are ahead of us as a country and as a people--and we respond, as I am sure we will, to a very positive message of the President, we also ought to be asking him what he can do to help today to provide a better tomorrow by sitting down and seriously negotiating with the congressional negotiators for a budget agreement that reaches a balanced budget in 7 years, which commits us to true welfare reform, Medicaid, Medicare, and tax relief for working families in America. If we do that, we will truly be able to say that our best days are ahead of us. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to begin by complimenting the Senator from Utah for presenting, I think, a very erudite discussion of the need for revisions in our tax policy and for his comments on the so-called Kemp Commission for the report which it released last week. I think he indicated the reasons why it is time to begin this debate. I will not repeat those. But he also showed his extensive knowledge in the area, and I appreciate the experience and the expertise which he brings to the Senate on this important topic and look forward to his continued counsel as we debate these issues during the next year and, hopefully, begin actual legislative work in fundamentally changing the Tax Code beginning in 1997. I thank the Senator from Utah.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I simply wanted to add a comment to what the Senator was speaking of. I just came from the room in which the staff had put together the final language. Representatives of the administration had signed off on it as well as the representatives from Senator Levin's office, and I signed off on it as well. I anticipate that at the point when it is agreeable with all of the Senators, that it represents the final piece in the agreement. As far as I know, there has been agreement reached, in other words, on all of those provisions. I thank both Senator Lugar and Senator Stevens for their leadership in bringing this group together to allow the creation of these additional declarations and one addition to be added for the treaty.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to again thank Senator Stevens for his leadership role in bringing together a group of Senators who wanted to put the finishing touches on the declarations here and to do that in a very short period of time. I appreciate his leadership in bringing the group together and getting this job done so that we could begin the discussion of the treaty now prior to the end of the year. Mr. President, let me begin by asking unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several items which pertain to the matters which I will be discussing relative to the START II Treaty.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in considering whether the United States should ratify the START II Treaty, I believe it is critical that the terms of the treaty be reviewed in the context of the national deterrent strategy of the United States. Further, it is important to recall why this treaty came about and how it was intended to complement the strategic posture of the United States. The treaty, in other words, Mr. President, is based on assumptions. If these assumptions change, we have to reassess our position with respect to the treaty. What are some of these assumptions? First, the Bush legacy, how the treaty came into being. As the Soviet communism and the Warsaw Pact were collapsing, President Bush moved to establish a new framework for U.S. strategic forces, and it had two key elements. First involved a restructuring and downsizing of U.S. offensive nuclear forces and operations. This was the precursor for START II. Second, it involved refocusing the strategic defense initiative from the previous Reagan administration to provide protection against ballistic missile attacks on the United States, our troops deployed abroad, and United States allies, and an offer to work cooperatively with Russia and the allies in developing and fielding such defenses. President Bush's commitment to a new strategic framework based on fewer but still potent nuclear forces and the development and deployment of effective ballistic missile defenses was perhaps best highlighted during June 1992 when he and President Yeltsin had their famous summit. At that meeting, the two Presidents reached an agreement on the outlines of the START II agreement which committed both sides to reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals to 3,000-3,500 warheads, significantly below the force levels permitted by START I. Importantly, they also agreed to explore creation of a global ballistic missile defense system and to cooperate in the development of missile defense technologies. The administration's framework rightly retained a strong commitment to ensuring nuclear deterrence and supporting infrastructure over the long term. President Bush and his advisors correctly believed that nuclear weapons should retain a legitimate, albeit more limited, role in U.S. national security policy. They also recognized that efforts to delegitimize or to eliminate nuclear weapons could have the paradoxical effect of increasing national instability and the likelihood of conflict. Finally, they prudently believed that given the possibility of reversal of reform in Russia, the United States should retain a healthy nuclear capability as a residual deterrent. In sum, President Bush and his advisers understood that there was simply too much uncertainty in the international arena to justify eliminating what was a central element of U.S. national security policy. Likewise, President Bush's support for a more prominent role for ballistic missile defenses in the United States and allied security policy was correctly seen as a means of bolstering, not replacing, nuclear deterrence at reduced strategic offensive force levels. Such defenses also could protect our allies and forward-deployed United States troops from threat posed by short and medium-ranged missiles and provide substantial population defense in the event of an accidental, unauthorized or limited attack on the American homeland from Russia or any other country. From that foundation, we come to the Clinton administration. This administration has essentially rejected the Bush framework and instead has embraced what I believe is a dangerous and ill-conceived policy of proactive denuclearization. The administration has taken steps to lock in perhaps for decades to come America's vulnerability to missile attack and has used the arms control process to impede development and deployment of effective defenses against short and medium-ranged missiles and has used the arms control process to impede development and deployment of effective defenses against short- and medium-ranged missiles. The Clinton administration's antinuclear sentiments are perhaps best illustrated by reviewing the declining health of the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure. America's core nuclear competency is made up primarily of skilled and motivated people, modern facilities, adequate funding, and continued nuclear testing. I would like to discuss each of these briefly. The concept, Mr. President, is this: When we draw our forces down from a very large component of nuclear warheads and missile delivery systems to a much more modest one under START I, and an even more modest level under START II, we have to be in a position to guarantee that what we are left with will work for the purpose for which it is intended, to deter anyone from a nuclear attack. That is why it is necessary to ensure that our infrastructure is not eroded or dismantled. I mentioned that the first critical element of this group are the people themselves. The critical skill base, or the expertise of individuals at the weapons laboratories, is rapidly eroding and poses an immediate problem, Mr. President. As noted in a recent Congressional Research Service report: The experience gained from testing is irreplaceable, and aspects of it may be lost unless it is passed on to the next generation. Yet demographic data . . . indicate that skill base is eroding rapidly. The weapons program is losing skills as many experienced scientists retire and few new ones are hired. As a result, gaps in the skill base are opening that have adverse consequences for stewardship. This means the stewardship of our nuclear stockpile. The weapons programs face further strain from a budget that is shrinking no end in sight and from a growth in mandated non-programmed risks. The CRS report further notes that a majority of weapons designers will be facing retirement within the next 10 to 15 years and that the labs have already lost certain experimental capabilities, and in other areas the labs are only one person deep. The next critical element of our U.S. nuclear infrastructure are the facilities. Currently the United States has no capacity to produce tritium, a critical gaseous element not only for our new nuclear warheads but also for replenishment of the active inventory. In sum, Mr. President, our weapons do not work without tritium, which decays at such a rapid rate that it must constantly be reinterjected into the weapons. Energy Secretary O'Leary has twice delayed a decision to select a new production reactor technology as a replacement for the K reactor at Savannah River, SC. The Department of Defense now indicates that a decision on the selected technology for a future tritium production capability will be made soon. But given the numerous delays by the Department of Defense, I hope you will forgive my skepticism. For all practical purposes, the United States has lost its capacity to produce critical plutonium components, including the vital pits of our nuclear warheads. And yet the Department of Defense has not decided on where such a production facility will be located. Meanwhile, the Pantex facility in Texas is so overloaded with the task of dismantling warheads for disposal that it risks not being able to conduct a rigorous program of stockpile surveillance. The next component for a robust stockpile, Mr. President, is nuclear testing. The Clinton administration continues to embrace a nuclear testing moratorium and a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as central to its arms control policy. Contrary to President Clinton's beliefs, I believe that a moratorium, a continued moratorium on U.S. nuclear testing will do nothing to aid in the fight against proliferation. Extension of the NPT matters little to the pariah nations that are or at least should be the primary object of our nuclear proliferation efforts. And with these states, U.S. nuclear testing has no bearing on their nuclear ambitions and programs. In fact, Mr. President, Charles Krauthammer captured the essence of this point in a Washington Post op-ed of July 16, 1993, of which he said: There is something lunatic about saying that if we devalue and degrade our arsenal, nukes will then have less value for the North Koreas of the world. On the contrary. . . . The future nuclear weapons reliably held by the great powers, the greater the premium--the power--conferred upon the have-not who acquires them. At the same time, Mr. President, nuclear testing is needed to assure the long-term safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons, and with it our ability to deter Russian nuclear aggression and to convince our allies, such as Germany and Japan, that abstaining from the acquisition of nuclear weapons makes sense as well. Even though U.S. nuclear weapons are at present safe and reliable, it is only through the continued explosive testing that the United States will be able to monitor and improve the stockpile safety and reliability well into the future. I talked before, Mr. President, about U.S. missile defense plans. And as I said, all of the premises of the START II Treaty are important to understanding why the START II Treaty is believed to be advantageous, but in the event these assumptions change, our position would obviously have to be reassessed. To the issue of a combination of offense and defense, which was contemplated by the Bush administration at the time that the treaty was signed, I would note that following the Persian Gulf war, which certainly focused attention on the proliferation of missile defenses and weapons of mass destruction, the Congress passed the Missile Defense Act of 1991 to continue this movement toward the development of a robust missile defense system in the United States. The act urged accelerated deployment of effective theater missile defense capability. Perhaps more importantly, it served as a sign of intent that the Congress was prepared to adequately fund and support a robust U.S. missile defense capability, both the theater missile system and a national missile defense. But the consensus was short lived. One of the first casualties of President Clinton's quest to cut defense spending in order to pay for costly social programs was the budget for ballistic missile defenses. The DOD Bottom-Up Review of 1993 cut the fiscal year 1994 to 1999 5- year budget for the Strategic Defense Initiative by approximately 60 percent from $41 billion to $18 billion. Hit hardest by this cut was the National Missile Defense Account. DOD not only rejected the option to deploy a defense of the American homeland, but also rejected even a robust research and development effort. The Clinton administration has also used arms control to further erode the U.S. ability to effectively deploy TMD and NMD systems. Since November 1993, the administration has been engaged in negotiations with Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union in an effort to demarcate the line between permitted TMD systems and those activities and systems that are banned under the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. In those talks, the United States has taken the following positions: First, we are no longer seeking to amend the ABM Treaty to allow multiple ground-based ABM sites in the United States, nor is the United States continuing to propose that the treaty be amended to allow space-based interceptors; for example, the so-called Brilliant Eyes program, to perform direct battle management functions or otherwise substitute for ABM radars. This is despite the fact that the space-based system offers unique capabilities for sensing and intercepting missile threats that ground-based systems simply do not have. As described above, the United States needs to begin fielding a national missile defense system now in order to be able to have it in place by the time the new threat is deployed. Second, the administration has agreed to multilateralize the ABM Treaty and accept as treaty partners any of the former 10 Soviet states who want to be secessionites. And this means that all former Soviet Union states will be required to approve any changes to the treaty. So the administration approach will make it much more difficult for any future administration modifying the treaty, for example, to permit multiple ground-based ABM sites or space-based interceptors since, of course, these modifications must be blessed, not only by Russia, but also several other former republics of the Soviet Union. Third, in November 1993, the administration proposed a standard for determining compliance of TMD systems with the ABM Treaty based on the demonstrated capability of such systems. More recently, however, the administration has accepted specific design/performance limitations on TMD systems and is considering numerical and deployment-area limitations on such systems as well. The limitations now under discussion are more restrictive than the ABM system limitations already in the treaty. If accepted, such new limitations would effectively transform the ABM Treaty into a Theater Missile Defense/ABM Treaty and would preclude the United States from deploying one or more promising concepts for countering the growing threat posed by theater missiles. I have reference to the Navy Upper Tier program. Despite five letters from Senate Republicans and clear language from the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House National Security Committee, the administration has kept up its assault on theater ballistic missile defenses. A clearly stated objective of the Nuclear Posture Review, which was publicly released by the administration on September 22, 1994, was to provide planning stability for the U.S. strategic forces between now and the year 2003, the year that START II is to be fully implemented. This raises the next important point with regard to the assumptions underlying the START II treaty, Mr. President, because, of course, the Nuclear Posture Review is the document which determines the number and nature of our nuclear warheads and the targets to which they would be assigned. The administration in this review embraced a force structure of 66 nuclear-capable B-52H bombers, down from previously 94; 450 to 500 ICBM's--currently the number is 550--and 14 missile-carrying Trident submarines, down from 18, all to be backfitted with the D-5 missile. This force structure was linked to the so-called ``hedge strategy'' designed to take into account the possibility of a reversal of reforms in Russia and the much slower paced nuclear drawdown there. But no sooner had the Defense Department released the results of the nuclear posture review, the President moved to overturn it. Just 5 days after the NPR was released, President Clinton stated his willingness to begin discussions with Russia on a possible START III agreement to reduce strategic forces below the 3,500 weapons permitted by START II and to deactivate all strategic nuclear delivery systems to be reduced under START II by removing their nuclear warheads or taking other steps to remove them from combat status. The President's declarations served to undermine whatever hoped-for planning stability associated with U.S. strategic forces existed as a result of the NPR. Since 1988, U.S. strategic nuclear forces have been reduced by approximately 50 percent and U.S. nonstrategic nuclear forces by approximately 90 percent. Furthermore, the annual budget for strategic forces has been reduced from roughly $50 billion per year at the height of the cold war to below $13 billion today, and the United States has no new strategic systems under development. By contrast, Russia continues to modernize its strategic arsenal. The Russian program involves the development for deployment of two new ICBM's, one new SLBM, submarine-launched ballistic missile, and continuation of deep underground bunkers for control and command and leadership survivor. This seems to indicate, despite severe economic difficulties, Russia intends to modernize down to lower force levels. In addition, Russia's new doctrine places much greater emphasis on retaliation against conventional attacks on targets in Russia. That brings us to where we are today in consideration of the START II treaty. START II on January 3, 1993, President George Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin signed the treaty. START II builds on the START I treaty which reduces strategic offensive arsenals on both sides by about one-third and which focuses on the conversion and destruction of missile launchers--bombers, silos, submarine launchers--rather than the missiles and the warheads. START II reduces both countries' nuclear arsenal to about 3,300 warheads for the United States and about 3,000 for Russia. The treaty requires Russia to eliminate all MIRV'd missiles. These are the missiles that have more than one warhead on top of them and present a special threat launched by either side. But it does allow the country to download 105 of the six-warhead SS-19's to a single warhead each, and to make 90 SS-18 silos inoperable by partly filling them with concrete, but it allows Russia to house the less powerful SS-25 missile in the converted silo. In addition, the treaty allows Russia to inspect, for the first time, the bomb-bays of the B-2, the U.S. bomber, to ensure that the warhead limits are adhered to. It actually also counts the warheads on the B-1 bomber cruise missiles, and it ensures that 100 U.S. bombers have been reassigned to conventional use. START II requires the United States to scrap or modify its 50 MX missiles, which have 10 warheads each, and to cut by about one-half the number of warheads on its submarine-launched missiles from 3,456 to 1,728. START II is to be implemented in two phases: the first is to be completed within 7 years of ratification and the second by the year 2003. When reductions are complete, the U.S. level will return to those of the 1960's and the Russian levels to those of the 1970's. Mr. President, I want to make it very clear that while I believe the START II treaty is fair and is advantageous to the United States, it is only in the interest of the United States if certain key provisions of the treaty are not changed or are not weakened in any way. I do not think it is too much to expect those in the Senate who ratify this treaty, who support ratification, to expect that the treaty will be adhered to by both sides and will not be changed or weakened in any way. I know that some in the defense community have real concerns with provisions of the treaty. The Washington-based Center for Security Policy, for example, has listed the following provisions as particularly troublesome: First, the right on the part of the Russians to retain the SS-18 silos. As I said, the START II treaty will not eliminate the infrastructure associated with this most dangerous of the former Soviet Union MIRV'd missile, SS-18 heavy ICBM's. Instead, it allows Moscow to retain 90 of the SS-18 silos and associated launch facilities and support complexes. As the United States has no idea how many SS-18 missiles the Russians actually have in their inventory, even the monitored destruction of ``declared'' heavy ICBM's could leave Moscow in a position to utilize these silos in the future to launch SS-18's. So this is a matter of some concern. The right to retain the SS-19's: Under START II, Moscow may retain as many as 105 deployed SS-19's as long as these missiles are ``downloaded,'' a process by which five of the six warheads are removed. Unfortunately, as long as the Russians retain replacement warheads, it can, with little fear of U.S. detection, rapidly reverse the downloading process. In this manner, the Russians can retain a militarily significant breakout capability. This is an obvious concern. Since there are no limits on either START I or START II on the number of ``nondeployed'' SS-19's, the Russians may be able to keep as many of these missiles, even in a fully loaded status, as they wish. As I said before, the United States agreed to onsite inspections of the B-2. The effect of this provision, though considered necessary for the agreement of the treaty, will be to degrade the deterrent value of this air-breathing leg of the U.S. strategic triad. This is by no means a comprehensive list of some of the problematic aspects of the treaty. I call my colleagues' attention to the testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee by one of the critics of the treaty, Sven Kraemer, former Director of Arms Control at the National Security Council, in which he lists a comprehensive listing of some of the more troublesome aspects of the treaty. I note these simply to indicate, Mr. President, that while I believe this treaty, on balance, represents a fair and constructive way to approach the problem of reducing the number of these dangerous weapons as to the interests of the United States, that it is not without concern and that those of us who support the treaty, I think, should be respected in our delineation of these concerns, because, as I have said, much depends on the assumptions that underlie the treaty, and if those assumptions later change, obviously we would have to reassess our position under the treaty. President Reagan said it well: ``Trust but verify.'' The problem here is that it is not easy to verify. There are some things that are just very, very difficult to verify in this treaty, difficult if not impossible. So, to some extent, there is an element of trust required, and I suspect that all of us base some of our position here on an element of hope as well. But the point is that as we bring the number of these weapons down to a relatively lower number, much smaller number, we better make sure that they work, we better make sure that the other side does not cheat, because cheating, when both sides only have a few, is much more dangerous than if we both have very large components in our nuclear arsenal. I also note, Mr. President, that the Russians have certain concerns with START II. This would be, I think, obvious in any negotiation where both sides give and take. So we are not the only ones who have concerns. As a matter of fact, an internal Duma report prepared by the Duma's analytical center and reporting in an unclassified memo from the American Embassy, we note that there are seven specific amendments recommended to the treaty. I will not go into these, although I will be submitting my entire statement for the Record, which identifies these particular proposed changes from the standpoint of the Russian Duma. None of these amendments, suffice it to say, would be acceptable to the United States. In fact, if any one of these were to be accepted by the Russian Duma, it would gut the central provisions of START II. That is why, despite the fact that there are those who believe that some amendments might have made the treaty more acceptable from the United States' perspective and urged that we actually offer amendments to the treaty in that regard, I think others of us felt that it was better to keep the treaty as it was negotiated and signed by the two parties, because we did not want to begin the process of amendment which would then give those in the Russian Duma a greater capability to argue the appropriateness of making amendments from their perspective. That is why it is important that there be no amendments from either side. We have declarations and one condition, which we think help to establish the basis of the treaty from our perspective. Clearly, no amendment to the treaty, along the previously suggested lines, by the Russian Duma would be appropriate. That would be a basis for our withdrawal from the treaty. I want to make it very clear that there is one thing in particular I would very strongly oppose. I will very strongly oppose any attempt by the administration, or anyone else, to walk back the MIRV downloading provision of the treaty, to allow the Russians to either increase the numbers of SS-18's, or to modify the structural changes to the SS-18 silos, or to delay the implementation of START II. I believe that any changes to the treaty, especially in these two key areas, would obviously require Senate advice and consent. Mr. President, if there is anyone who, during the course of this discussion, disagrees with that, I would like them to say that. I would like to have a dialog with that individual. I doubt that anyone could conceivably come to that conclusion. But, clearly, we have to have it established, as we vote to ratify this treaty, that in those two most important respects the U.S. Senate would have to provide advice and consent. I know the administration has agreed with that proposition as of now. I cannot imagine any disagreement. I note, for the Record, that with regard to walking back the MIRV downloading, Mr. Bob Bell, Special Assistant to the President, and an individual well known here in the Senate, who has assisted Senator Nunn for many years, has written, ``This report is totally unsubstantiated and pure fantasy.'' By the way, he was referring to a report that there may be some move toward some MIRV downloading in the treaty. ``The administration is not planning and does not have under consideration any such proposal.'' Mr. President, I accept that statement from Mr. Bob Bell, and I certainly would not oppose the treaty based on assurances from the administration that MIRV downloading will not occur. But, it is an illustration, Mr. President, of the kinds of things which at least have been talked about as possible changes and which I think we have to be very, very careful in considering prior to the ratification of the treaty, so that if those kinds of changes should ever be suggested to us, the record has been very clear that, A, it would require the advice and consent of the Senate, and, B, it would not be in the best interest of the United States. One more note about Russian compliance with the arms control agreement, Mr. President. Questions about verifiability of the treaty are important because of concerns about whether the Russians will, in fact, abide by the terms of START II. Obviously, we all hope and require that the Russians fully comply with START II. But their record, and the record of the former Soviet Union, with respect to compliance with arms control agreements is somewhat dubious. I will note just a few of the areas of violation in the past: The Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Agreements, the Missile Technology Control Regime, START I, and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaties. All of these agreements have provisions that Russia has, in one way or another, failed to comply. I mention this and the previous arms control agreements to underscore the importance of assuring that the Russians comply with the START II Treaty--not that they intend to comply, but that they are complying. An assumption of Russian compliance with the terms of START II is one significant consideration in my decision to support the treaty. I have confidence that they will comply, and that is the basis for my support of the treaty. The final substantive point, Mr. President, I would make is this, and it has to do with linkage to the ABM Treaty. There is no linkage between the ABM Treaty and the START II Treaty-- although this is a favorite argument of some members of the administration and of opponents of ballistic missile defenses in the Russian Duma. There is no linkage between these two treaties. There never was and never will be. There are those who believe that the ABM Treaty and START II are linked; further, that action relating to ballistic missile defenses in the United States will somehow affect ratification of START II in Russia. In fact, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Russians have concerns about ratifying START II irrespective of Senate action on the ABM Treaty. It is incontroverted by a variety of Russian spokesmen themselves, who have made the point crystal clear that their concerns about START II have to do with the treaty itself, with their requirements under the treaty, and with the costs that their compliance will entail, and not with the United States position with respect to the ABM Treaty. For example, chairman of the Duma's Foreign Relations Committee, Vladimir Lukin, said ``We need big money to carry out these reductions [in START II], and we don't have it. We do not want to ratify this Treaty and then not be able to comply with its terms. We will have to wait until we see how to pay for our promises.'' As quoted by Jim Hoagland in the Washington Post, July 2, 1995. Other Russians tie START II ratification to other international issues. Speaker of the Federation Council [upper chamber], Vladimir Shumeyko, stated, ``We closely link [START II] ratification with the overall situation existing between Russia and NATO. We consider the perseverance of NATO as a stumbling block to our cooperation in the area of disarmament and advancement on the road to peace.''--Interfax, 1255 GMT, April 3, 1995. And, still others see START II as inimical to Russian interests. Viktor Ilyukhin, Chairman of the State Duma Security Committee, commented, ``If this treaty [START II] is fully implemented, the United States will almost double its superiority, while the damage to Russia's national security will be unrecoverable.''--ITAR-Tass, 1849 GMT, February 18, 1995. There are also political problems with Russian ratification of START II. Aleksander Konovalov, Director of the Russian Academy of Sciences USA and Canada Institute, observed, ``The outlook for the treaty's [START II] ratification by the Russian Federation's Federal Assembly is not at all promising. Some deputies support the treaty in its current version, but they are obviously the minority in parliament. A sizable group of opposition deputies will probably vote against the ratification of START II for purely political reasons.''--Segodnya, November 15, 1994, p.10. Sergei Karaganov, adviser to President Yeltsin, was quoted as saying, ``There is widespread feeling now that the United States pushed too hard when Russia was weak and that the treaty is unfair.'' As quoted by Jack Mendelshon, from ACDA, week of July 3, 1995. The U.S. ambassador to the START II talks, Linton Brooks, wrote in a memo dated November 5, 1995 about other factors affecting Duma consideration of START II. Brooks said, ``The major reason START II is in trouble in the Yeltsin government is not pushing it. Indeed, the government has been unable to say what the Russian force structure will be under START II, how much it will cost, or how Russia will pay for it.'' Brooks further stated, ``The bluntest political analysis I heard came from Alexei Mitrofanov of the Liberal Democratic Party. He argued that running against START II was good politics. In the LDP analysis, the Russian public associates the ``reforms'' which have ruined their country with the United States. As a result, there is growing, deep- rooted, exploitable, anti-American sentiments in the Russian electorate. START II is associated with the United States and thus no politician will want to support it.'' Finally, Brooks correctly concluded ``without more action by the Russian government, nothing that the United States does will matter.'' I say ``amen'' to any further discussion about the negative impact of Senate action on the ballistic missile defenses and the negative impact on Duma passage of the START II Treaty. Now, I want to move from those substantive points to the final point of my presentation, which has to do with the nine managers' amendments to the resolution of ratification--not treaty amendments, but rather declarations, and, in one case, a condition. Again, I express my appreciation to Senator Stevens, who is chairman of the Arms Control Observer Group, who called the group together to consider these ideas, and Senator Lugar, who was active in participating in the discussions, and to all of the Members on the other side of the aisle, who were active in negotiating and, in fact, also to Bob Bell, representing the administration's point of view. As a result of these discussions, we were able to agree to these nine managers' amendments. They will be discussed shortly, and I hope they will be agreed to because they express, in important ways, the substance of what I have been saying here. For example, that there is no linkage between the START II Treaty and ballistic missile defenses; that the President must consult closely with the Senate if he changes the nuclear force structure; that the President must submit for advice and consent any material modification or amendment or reinterpretation of the START II Treaty; that the Senate is concerned about the impact of allowing Russia and Ukraine to use excess ballistic missiles for space launch vehicles; and that the Senate is concerned about the maintenance and preservation of the nuclear weapons stockpile and the attendant facilities. These are important declarations, and I believe that in adopting them, the Senate is putting the administration and Russians, and everybody else, on notice that this drawdown must be accomplished carefully and with full cognizance of the impact on the future deterrent posture of the United States. The declarations also place the administration on notice that the Senate must be closely consulted with while it continues to negotiate with the Russians about the precise implementation of START II. Mr. President, in conclusion, I think President Bush got it right when he moved to reduce nuclear force levels and the role of nuclear weapons in the U.S. national security strategy. But he was also correct in maintaining a strong commitment to ensuring the long-term viability and efficacy of U.S. nuclear deterrent and supporting infrastructure. Likewise, his determination to refocus the SDI program on providing defenses against limited missile strikes reflect the widespread proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction and the apparent willingness of regional aggressors to use those weapons. Furthermore, once the United States' ability to manufacture and test new nuclear weapons and repair unsafe or unreliable old ones has disappeared, then neither we nor our allies will be able to count on our arsenal or deter aggression. At that point, we will have become effectively disarmed. Such a situation would result in a rethinking by our allies of their current commitment not to build their own nuclear arsenal--although they are technically capable of doing so--with dramatic consequences for U.S. national security. Likewise, the administration's abandonment of President Bush's plan to effect the TMD and NMD systems as a means of protection from strikes, at least on the timetable and in the way we believe is important, based on its view of the world, I think, represents a strategic blunder of major proportions. I will be working in the future to try to readdress that issue so that we can, at the same time we are drawing down our strategic offensive forces, provide a robust national and regional missile defense system. Mr. President, I hope that in the discussion of the declarations and the condition that will transpire in just a moment, that it would be clear to all of our colleagues that we have tried to express our concerns about the context in which the treaty must be considered, and that our colleagues will agree with us that these are all important declarations and it is an important condition that we place upon the treaty. I, of course, strongly urge the acceptance of that document. Finally, Mr. President, I, too, would like to make some comments when this matter is finally debated and voted on because I think it is important for all of our colleagues to hear something of the background of this treaty prior to the time--I say immediately prior to the time-- that the treaty is voted upon.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Crime Prevention Act. One of the most important responsibilities for the 104th Congress is to pass a tough comprehensive crime measure that will restore law and order to America's streets. Reported crime may have decreased slightly over the past few years, but the streets are still too dangerous. Too many Americans are afraid to go out for fear of being robbed, assaulted, or murdered. In fact, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report ``Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims,'' approximately 2 million people are injured a year as a result of violent crime. Of those who are injured, more than half require some level of medical treatment and nearly a quarter receive treatment in a hospital emergency room or require hospitalization.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Crime Prevention Act. One of the most important responsibilities for the 104th Congress is to pass a tough comprehensive crime measure that will restore law and order to America's streets. Reported crime may have decreased slightly over the past few years, but the streets are still too dangerous. Too many Americans are afraid to go out for fear of being robbed, assaulted, or murdered. In fact, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report ``Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims,'' approximately 2 million people are injured a year as a result of violent crime. Of those who are injured, more than half require some level of medical treatment and nearly a quarter receive treatment in a hospital emergency room or require hospitalization.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce the Victim Rights and Domestic Violence Prevention Act of 1995. The O.J. Simpson trial reminded all of us of the terrible problem of domestic violence in America. Now is the time to do all we can to bring abusers to justice. Women are the victims of more than 4.5 million violent crimes a year, including half a million rapes or other sexual assaults, according to the Department of Justice. The National Victims Center calculates that a woman is battered every 15 seconds. Additionally, the FBI has reported that one violent crime occurs every 16 seconds, an aggravated assault every 28 seconds, a robbery every 48 seconds, and a murder every 21 minutes. Nicole Brown Simpson's story is an all-too-familiar one. Last year's crime bill, which is now law, did much to help victims of domestic violence--making it easier for evidence of intrafamilial sexual abuse to be introduced, for example. It will now be much easier for prosecutors in Federal cases to introduce evidence that the accused committed a similar crime in the past. The crime act also provides Federal funding for battered women's shelters and training for law- enforcement officers and prosecutors. The Victim Rights and Domestic Violence Prevention Act will strengthen the rights of domestic violence victims in Federal court and, hopefully, set a standard for the individual States to emulate. A message must be sent to abusers that their behavior is not a family matter. Society should treat domestic violence as seriously as it does violence between strangers. My bill authorizes the death penalty for cases in which a woman is murdered by her husband or boyfriend. Courts will not, under this bill, be able to exclude evidence of a defendant's violent disposition toward the victim as impermissible character evidence. My bill also provides that if a defendant presents negative character evidence concerning the victim, the government's rebuttal can include negative character evidence concerning the defendant. It makes clear that testimony regarding battered women's syndrome is admissible to explain the behavior of victims of violence. We must establish a higher standard of professional conduct for lawyers. My legislation prohibits harassing or dilatory tactics, knowingly presenting false evidence or discrediting truthful evidence, willful ignorance of matters that could be learned from the client, and concealment of information necessary to prevent sexual abuse or other violent crimes. Violence in our society leaves law-abiding citizens feeling defenseless. It is time to level the playing field. Federal law currently gives the defense more chances than the prosecution to reject a potential juror. My bill protects the right of victims to an impartial jury by giving both sides the same number of peremptory challenges. Last year's Crime Act included a provision requiring notice to State and local authorities concerning the release of Federal violent offenders. Under the act, notice can only be used for law-enforcement purposes. The Justice Department opposes this limitation because it disallows other legitimate uses of the information, such as warning potential victims of the offender's return to the community. My bill would delete this restriction. Under the bill, if a victim requests an HIV test in a sexual abuse case, the court must order HIV testing of the defendant, unless the court determines that the defendant's conduct created no risk of transmission of the virus to the victim. The order must direct that the initial test be performed within 24 hours of the issuance of the testing order, or as soon thereafter as feasible. The defendant cannot be released from custody until the test is performed. Test results would be disclosed to the victim, and follow up testing would take place after 6 and 12 months. Additionally, the bill deletes a requirement that a victim must undergo counseling before she can seek a testing order. Second, it deletes a provision that the court cannot order testing of the defendant unless the victim demonstrates that such a test would provide information that is necessary for her health. Third, it makes clear that prosecutors may assist victims in obtaining testing orders under these provisions. It is our responsibility to continue to work to combat violent crime, wherever it occurs. The Victim Rights and Domestic Violence Prevention Act of 1995 is an important step toward protecting the rights of crime victims, curbing domestic violence, and removing violent offenders from our streets and communities. Finally, I would like to thank two of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. Throughout her career, Senator Feinstein has been a staunch defender of women against violence. She has worked hard on this bill. I greatly appreciate her work and her support. And I would also like to thank Senator DeWine for his help. Senator DeWine has worked hard to fight crime. His work on this bill is part of his ongoing effort to put an end to violence and bring criminals to justice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce the Victim Rights and Domestic Violence Prevention Act of 1995. The O.J. Simpson trial reminded all of us of the terrible problem of domestic violence in America. Now is the time to do all we can to bring abusers to justice. Women are the victims of more than 4.5 million violent crimes a year, including half a million rapes or other sexual assaults, according to the Department of Justice. The National Victims Center calculates that a woman is battered every 15 seconds. Additionally, the FBI has reported that one violent crime occurs every 16 seconds, an aggravated assault every 28 seconds, a robbery every 48 seconds, and a murder every 21 minutes. Nicole Brown Simpson's story is an all-too-familiar one. Last year's crime bill, which is now law, did much to help victims of domestic violence--making it easier for evidence of intrafamilial sexual abuse to be introduced, for example. It will now be much easier for prosecutors in Federal cases to introduce evidence that the accused committed a similar crime in the past. The crime act also provides Federal funding for battered women's shelters and training for law- enforcement officers and prosecutors. The Victim Rights and Domestic Violence Prevention Act will strengthen the rights of domestic violence victims in Federal court and, hopefully, set a standard for the individual States to emulate. A message must be sent to abusers that their behavior is not a family matter. Society should treat domestic violence as seriously as it does violence between strangers. My bill authorizes the death penalty for cases in which a woman is murdered by her husband or boyfriend. Courts will not, under this bill, be able to exclude evidence of a defendant's violent disposition toward the victim as impermissible character evidence. My bill also provides that if a defendant presents negative character evidence concerning the victim, the government's rebuttal can include negative character evidence concerning the defendant. It makes clear that testimony regarding battered women's syndrome is admissible to explain the behavior of victims of violence. We must establish a higher standard of professional conduct for lawyers. My legislation prohibits harassing or dilatory tactics, knowingly presenting false evidence or discrediting truthful evidence, willful ignorance of matters that could be learned from the client, and concealment of information necessary to prevent sexual abuse or other violent crimes. Violence in our society leaves law-abiding citizens feeling defenseless. It is time to level the playing field. Federal law currently gives the defense more chances than the prosecution to reject a potential juror. My bill protects the right of victims to an impartial jury by giving both sides the same number of peremptory challenges. Last year's Crime Act included a provision requiring notice to State and local authorities concerning the release of Federal violent offenders. Under the act, notice can only be used for law-enforcement purposes. The Justice Department opposes this limitation because it disallows other legitimate uses of the information, such as warning potential victims of the offender's return to the community. My bill would delete this restriction. Under the bill, if a victim requests an HIV test in a sexual abuse case, the court must order HIV testing of the defendant, unless the court determines that the defendant's conduct created no risk of transmission of the virus to the victim. The order must direct that the initial test be performed within 24 hours of the issuance of the testing order, or as soon thereafter as feasible. The defendant cannot be released from custody until the test is performed. Test results would be disclosed to the victim, and follow up testing would take place after 6 and 12 months. Additionally, the bill deletes a requirement that a victim must undergo counseling before she can seek a testing order. Second, it deletes a provision that the court cannot order testing of the defendant unless the victim demonstrates that such a test would provide information that is necessary for her health. Third, it makes clear that prosecutors may assist victims in obtaining testing orders under these provisions. It is our responsibility to continue to work to combat violent crime, wherever it occurs. The Victim Rights and Domestic Violence Prevention Act of 1995 is an important step toward protecting the rights of crime victims, curbing domestic violence, and removing violent offenders from our streets and communities. Finally, I would like to thank two of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. Throughout her career, Senator Feinstein has been a staunch defender of women against violence. She has worked hard on this bill. I greatly appreciate her work and her support. And I would also like to thank Senator DeWine for his help. Senator DeWine has worked hard to fight crime. His work on this bill is part of his ongoing effort to put an end to violence and bring criminals to justice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to begin this debate. I spoke on this floor, I think I was the first Member to speak after the President spoke to the Nation justifying his decision to commit 20,000 ground troops in Bosnia. I indicated my opposition at that time. I wish to reiterate that opposition now and very briefly indicate the reasons why and why I would support at least one and possibly two of the resolutions that will be before us tomorrow. I was privileged to serve in the House of Representatives during the time that we debated the issue of whether or not to commence the Desert Storm operation. I cannot think of a more serious debate that I participated in while a Member of the House of Representatives. It was an elevated debate in terms of the arguments that were raised on both sides, and I think that everyone felt at the end of that discussion the issue had been thoroughly debated, the good arguments presented on both sides, and I think the right result came from that vote. This is a similar issue, Mr. President. This is undoubtedly the most serious issue which we have had to debate in this year of the 104th Congress. In the long-term survivability of our country, I suppose one could talk about the balanced budget and those economic issues, but when one considers the possibility of sending young men and women in the Armed Forces into harm's way, all of us I think become very serious about the subject. On this particular subject, there is no right or wrong in the sense that reasonable people can have differing views. I would like to focus first on what we have agreed on, and I would like to say I know that although my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and I may have some disagreement about the ultimate resolution that should be passed in this body, we agree on what we are for, and I think I would also say that in response to Senator Bennett, who said that no senior Senator had offered more assistance to a junior Senator than Senator Hatch had to him, I would suggest that Senator McCain has provided that same kind of assistance to me, and I would wish to commend him for all of his efforts in trying to come to grips with what these resolutions should be all about and how we influence the administration in conducting a sound policy with respect to Bosnia. All of us, undoubtedly I could say all of us, are for peace in Bosnia, for an end to the slaughter. Many of us believe we have made a commitment to that with the American ships that are steaming in the Adriatic, the planes that are flying under the banner of NATO, the other kind of assistance which we have provided in terms of transport, intelligence, humanitarian assistance, and the monetary assistance that we will be asked to supply in the future. Second, we are all for the support of our troops. There is no one here who would want to pull the rug out from under our troops once they have been deployed somewhere. Of course, many of us believe the way to support our troops is not to send them in harm's way in the first instance. But once they are there, none of us, obviously, will want to jerk the rug out from under them. Having said what we are for, peace in Bosnia and support for our troops, I think it is also important for us to say what we oppose. And there are many of us here who oppose what I would characterize as the unreflective and offhanded and premature commitment of troops by the President. Our view is that the President should not have made this commitment, and that is why support for the Hutchison resolution is so important--to express our opposition to that decision. I would like to discuss why I think this issue arises today. If this were a vital national security interest of the United States, we would not be debating this question. The Senate would have supported it long ago and the American people would be in support of it. But there is no vital national security interest. There is no national security interest of the United States involved. And when there is no national security interest, I think there is a higher threshold that must be met for the commitment of troops into combat situations. Here there is at best what could be characterized as a national interest. Any time there is a moral imperative to stop slaughter, to stop genocide, I think one could say that there is a national interest in seeing that that is stopped. That does not mean in every case that the United States would send ground troops or we would have ground troops in possibly 20 or 30 or 40 places on the globe today. We do not. There are many situations that cry out for help but we cannot literally be the sheriff of the world. So the mere fact there is a moral imperative in some sense to stop the slaughter, to stop the genocide in different parts of the world, does not automatically mean the United States sends ground troops. We often do other things. There was a moral imperative to send humanitarian assistance to Somalia, and we did that. And there are moral imperatives in other places around the Earth where we have taken action. This is a moral imperative, but we should not be confused and call it a national security imperative because there is no national security interest of the United States involved here. And because it is only a moral imperative, it seems to me there should have been more debate by the Congress and with the American people about whether or not this is one of those occasions in which we send our people into harm's way. That debate could not occur before the commitment was made because the President made it, as I said, in an offhanded and premature way. Once he made the commitment, it is very difficult for us to argue about it because of the contention that we therefore are embarrassing the President; that we no longer have a foreign policy behind which we stand united in the world and therefore once the commitment was made it is no longer possible for us to debate it. That kind of catch-22 could occur in the future. There are other situations in the world where there is a possibility of commitment of U.S. troops. I have heard, for example, that if Israel and Syria should make peace, United States troops might be sent to the Golan Heights. I do not know whether that is a good idea or not, Mr. President, but I do believe that before a commitment is made we ought to debate that and come to a resolution of that question and the administration act with the advice and consent of the Senate in that matter. I suggest that probably the same thing will happen there that happened here. A commitment will be made in private. We will be told about it later. And because it was already made, we will be told that we cannot really argue about it because it would undercut American foreign policy. That is not sound decisionmaking and that is really what I object to and why I think it is important for us to have a resolution in opposition to the decision the President made. There are three basic responses that have been made. One is the so- called Hefley amendment. This is the amendment that passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly. And it is embodied in a sense-of-the- Senate that was incorporated into the Defense appropriations bill as well, but that was a sense-of-the-Senate rather than actual legislation. This basically says that there should not be a commitment of funds until the Congress has acted affirmatively on the matter, and I think that is wise policy. That is the way it should have been done here. That is, in effect, the way President Bush did it when he sought Congress' approval to conduct the Desert Storm operation. The second response to what the President did is the so-called Hutchison amendment. This is an amendment which I have cosponsored which says that we oppose what the President did. It also says we support the troops. But I think we have to express that opposition. The third resolution is the one that Senator McCain referred to, the Dole resolution, which apparently has not been written yet and therefore obviously I cannot comment on that. But the point is, Mr. President, in all likelihood none of these three responses will become law. So we will have to do what is necessary to support the troops. And we will do that. What we are relegated to doing tomorrow when we have our vote is to send a message, and I think the message we send is very important. First of all, it ought to be a message of unity and support of our troops. Second, it ought to be a message of unity in support of the peace process through a variety of mechanisms that the United States has already been participating in and will in the future be participating in. Third, it ought to be a message that we oppose this particular commitment of troops both in terms of the lack of clarity of mission and exit strategy and of the premise for the mission in the first place; and that is that it is essential for U.S. ground troops to be a part of the so-called peacekeeping effort or else it will fail. As I said before, Mr. President, if this agreement is so fragile that the sine qua non--that without which--for its success is a commitment of 20,000 American ground troops, then it is probably a peace too fragile to be sustained in any event, and those are the messages I think we should send in the resolutions that we adopt tomorrow. I think that the bottom-line message should be that the President should not get us into these situations in the future, and it is not fair to those who we ask to do the fighting for the United States of America. And so, Mr. President, we commend those who have negotiated the peace. We pray for those who will be doing the fighting. We pray for the recovery of the area in which so much turmoil and difficulty has occurred over the last several years. And we certainly hope that while this mission begins in much controversy, that it can end successfully and without loss of life or casualty to our United States troops. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader I would like to make the following announcement: Today there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 1 p.m. At 1 p.m., the Senate will resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 31, the constitutional amendment regarding the desecration of the U.S. flag. Under the provisions of the consent agreement reached on Friday, amendments will be offered and debated today, however no rollcall votes will occur during today's session. Any votes ordered on the amendments will be stacked to begin at 2:15, Tuesday afternoon.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly to the remarks of the Senator from Wisconsin and other arguments in opposition to this proposed amendment and to speak briefly in favor of the amendment. Senator Roth from Delaware is here to speak to an important subject as well. So what I will do is truncate my remarks, and Senator Hatch will be here a little bit later to speak at greater length on the constitutional amendment. [[Page S 18261]] Mr. President, I think we need to start with some fundamentals. I have never questioned the sincerity, or the judgment, or reasoning, or conclusions, even, of those who oppose a constitutional amendment on desecration of the flag. There are very sound constitutional arguments on both sides of this issue. It is one of those classical issues on which people on both sides can marshal evidence, historical commentary, and reasoning to support their views. In my view, it is not an easy question to resolve. But I do take some offense at the suggestion that those who propose the amendment--just to use one quotation used before--are involved in misguided rhetoric, and terminology of that sort. We can disagree over something of this importance, without suggesting that those who hold a different view are dangerous, misguided, or simply engaged in rhetoric. I think, to some extent, that while nothing--except perhaps declaring war--is a more solemn right and responsibility of the Congress than amending the Constitution, it is also possible that some in Congress, from time to time, become consumed by their own importance. It is easy to do. Yet, I think it is equally important for us to recognize that we do not amend the Constitution, that while it is important for us to raise all of these questions and to debate this as solemnly as we can, that we do not amend the Constitution, Mr. President. The people amend the Constitution. All we can do is recommend an amendment. It is the people who make the ultimate decision. To put it in the simplest terms, what we are suggesting is we ask the American people: Do you want to amend the Constitution to protect the flag? If the people say no, then it will not happen; if the people say yes, I suggest that we should rely upon their judgment in this matter, the very people who, after all, elect us to represent them in all other matters except amending the Constitution, which under our document is reserved to the people for final decision. I think we have to put some trust in the American people here to do the right thing. It is interesting to me that historically in this country for 200 years we got along very well living under a Constitution that protected free speech, and yet in 49 of the 50 States, prevented desecration of the flag. This is not a choice between protecting the flag and the U.S. Constitution, as was suggested a moment ago. That is a false choice. For 200 years we did both. We can do both. Since the decision of the Supreme Court which struck down the protection of the flag, 49 States, including my State of Arizona, have passed memorializing resolutions calling on Congress to pass a flag desecration amendment so that the States could consider it. In 1991, Arkansas, while President Clinton was still serving as Governor, became the 11th of 49 States to ``urge Congress of the United States to propose an amendment to the U.S. Congress, for ratification by the States, specifying that the Congress and the States shall have the power to prevent the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' I also note that the decision of the Supreme Court invalidated the law that then-Governor Clinton had signed months earlier which prohibited the intentional desecration of the flag, though the President now opposes this particular amendment. The House passed a companion measure to that which is being considered here, on June 28, by a vote of 312 to 120. This has bipartisan support. The Senate Judiciary Committee, with equally bipartisan support, approved the amendment on July 20 by a vote of 12 to 6. The purpose of this resolution is to restore the authority to adopt statutes protecting the U.S. flag from physical desecration. As I said, it is not a choice between the flag and the Constitution. We proved for 200 years that both are possible to protect. The flag is worthy of protection. It is a unique national symbol, representative, among other things, of the men and women who have served this country. It is draped over the coffins of those who have paid the ultimate price to preserve our freedom and invokes very strong emotions in all Americans. It is important to protect the symbol for these reasons. You cannot burn or deface other national symbols which have far less emotional symbolic value than the flag, but we allow it because the Supreme Court said a few years ago we would allow the desecration of the flag. This resolution, frankly, is in direct response to the Texas versus Johnson decision in Texas of the Supreme Court. It was a 5-to-4 decision. So literally, one unelected judge decided that a law that had existed for over 200 years was now mysteriously unconstitutional. The Court later ruled in United States versus Eichman that Congress could not by statute protect the flag making it very clear that our only response could be a proposed constitutional amendment. Mr. President, I am not going to respond to each of the arguments made because Senator Roth has some important things to say on another subject. Let me just respond to a couple. One of the arguments and probably the key argument of the proponents is that we would be trampling on the right of free speech by adopting this amendment. I understand that argument. It is not a frivolous argument. The argument of some opponents that flag burning is a nonproblem because it is hardly ever done and therefore why would we even want to bother with this, I think is a good argument against the notion that this would be a significant intrusion on the first amendment. It seems to me opponents cannot argue on the one hand that this is insignificant, never happens, why are you worrying about it, and on the other hand say it would be the biggest travesty and impingement on free speech to be visited on the U.S. Constitution and the people of America. You cannot have it both ways. The truth of the matter is it is true that this is not a big problem, but it does not follow from that that we should not offer the States the ability to restore the protection of the flag that it enjoyed for 200 years. Mr. President, 49 States seem to think this is important enough to have memorialized Congress, asking for the ability to once again restore that protection. Now, the passing of a constitutional amendment would not prevent those who hate America or who have particular grievances from expressing this contempt through any other speech or even certain conduct as the Supreme Court has permitted. You do not have to burn the flag to express your views. I suggest in civilized society people should be able to express themselves in ways that are not so personally and viscerally offensive, for example, to a family grieving over the flag-draped coffin of a loved one. Mr. President, let me just conclude by quoting from some people who have spoken to this issue before in a way which I think is instructive. This is not misguided rhetoric by extremists or superpatriots. I refer, Mr. President, to the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren, an eminently respected jurist of this country: ``I believe that the States and the Federal Government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace.'' A famous liberal jurist, a man greatly respected on the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Hugo Black: It passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars a State from making the deliberate burning of the American flag an offense. It is immaterial that the words are spoken in connection with the burning. It is the burning of the flag that the State has set its face against. And Justice Abe Fortas, a respected liberal, a Democrat, not an extremist conservative patriot: ``* * * the States and the Federal Government have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration * * *.'' Let me quickly also demonstrate this point further by noting the names of many respected members of the Democratic Party who have sponsored or voted for this amendment. This is not a partisan issue, as I said: 93 House Democrats voted for the flag amendment, including Richard Gephardt the minority leader, Deputy Whips Bill Richardson and Chet Edwards, and a host of other ranking and subcommittee members and key members of the Democratic Party. Democrats and Republicans alike, liberals and conservatives, can appreciate the importance of doing this. And the final argument that was made that these words are so subject to [[Page S 18262]] interpretation, ``desecration'' and ``flag''--who knows what ``flag'' means? Mr. President, the American experience of 200-plus years teaches us what the word ``flag'' means, and ``desecration'' has meaning which can be interpreted by judges of good will. The Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution are filled with general statements which the Framers of the Constitution and of the 14th amendment clearly understood need to be phrased relatively generally in order to deal with the variety of circumstances to which they would be applied. Words like ``establishment of religion,'' ``unreasonable searches and seizures,'' leaving ``unreasonable'' to the interpretation of the courts. ``Due process of law''--I can hear the arguments now. What do you mean by ``due process''? What do you mean by ``just compensation,'' by ``speedy trial''? You need to define it. Mr. President, one of the geniuses of the Constitution is that it is not defined with all of the precision that we apply to legislation, to laws, and the even greater precision that is applied to regulations to execute those laws. That is the genius of the Constitution. So, all of the generalized phrases, the ``cruel and unusual punishment,'' ``equal protection of the laws,'' and other generalized statements have served us very well for over 200 years. Certainly for words like ``flag,'' which I suggest has a pretty specific meaning, and even ``desecration,'' which is less so, it is possible to interpret those words in a meaningful and consistent way, particularly, as was noted earlier, if we amend the proposal here to provide for the Federal Government, the Congress, rather than the States, to adopt the legislation that would provide for the protection of the flag. So, much more will be said about this amendment. Senator Hatch will be here in a moment to discuss the amendment in more detail, to explain the reasons why the Judiciary Committee was able to pass it out with such an overwhelming majority. I am going to close by quoting from Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion from the decision in the Texas versus Johnson case, which precluded the Congress and the States from any longer protecting the flag. I think these words are appropriate as we think about the possibility that American soldiers will again be sent to foreign lands to fight, and the concern for those people who we put in harm's way, people who defend the ideals of our country. It is appropriate to reflect upon the value of the flag as a symbol to those people. Let me quote again, as I said, from the dissenting opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Texas versus Johnson. He said: At Iwo Jima, United States Marines fought hand to hand against thousands of Japanese. By the time the Marines reached the top of Mt. Suribachi they raised a piece of pipe upright and from one end fluttered a flag. That ascent had cost nearly 6,000 lives. Mr. President, that sacrifice could never be put adequately into words, but the flag symbolizes perfectly what words cannot describe. And it is that symbol that we see when we go to the monument just a couple of miles south of here and see the flag being raised over Mt. Suribachi that recalls so many memories and evokes so many emotions among Americans, that we come to the conclusion that this one very special symbol of America and everything for which it stands should receive minimal protection by the people of the United States. That is why I urge my colleagues to follow the lead of the House of Representatives and submit this question to the people of the United States to determine whether or not they want to amend the Constitution to protect the flag from desecration. Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Roth. At the time that Senator Hatch comes, he will speak further to the issue of the flag.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I certainly have been privileged to work with the Senator from Colorado in supporting this very important piece of legislation and would like to reiterate at the very outset precisely what we do here and why. This bill, as the Senator from Colorado has noted, eliminates many of the problems that senior communities have experienced over the last decade, and I think everyone recognizes that my State of Arizona was really a pioneer in the creation of these senior communities. They know who they are, and they do not need the Department of Housing and Urban Development designing a set of criteria such that the Senator from Colorado has just provided us with to define them as a senior community. Believe me, if you go to Arizona and you are in one of these communities, you are fully aware that that is where you are. But under current law, these communities must follow these HUD guidelines or regulations in order to qualify for the exemption. The bill repeals this so-called significant facilities requirement, simplifying the process by which legitimate seniors-only facilities will gain the exemption. To obtain the exemption, the bill only requires that 80 percent of the households in a community have in residence at least one person over the age of 55. That is the requirement. If the community publicly states and can prove that 80 percent of its units have one or more occupants age 55 or older, then it would pass the adults-only housing test and qualify for an exemption from the Fair Housing Act's antifamily discrimination rule even if it lacked the significant facilities as defined by HUD. In addition, to reduce abusive litigation, the bill allows that realtors and developers may show good-faith reliance on the seniors- only exemption if such person has no actual knowledge that the facility or community is not or will not be eligible for such an exemption, and the facility or community has stated formally in writing that the facility or community complies with the requirement for such exemption. Now, who supports this legislation? Fortunately, just about everybody. I have received literally hundreds of letters of support from seniors living in these communities. Many of the community coordinators have expressed support to us. Due to HUD's stringent ``significant facilities'' regulations, it is the fact that a few of these communities have actually lost their seniors exemption. Constituents from Mesa, Tucson, Golden Valley, Green Valley, Scottsdale, Sun City, Yuma, Dreamland Villa Community, and Phoenix have all communicated with me. Groups like the Arizona Association of Manufactured Homeowners and their 25,000 homeowners, Adult Action of Arizona and their 42,000 homeowners, Fountain of the Sun Homeowners, Arizona Manufactured Housing Institute, Sun Lakes Homeowners, Yuma East Owners Association, Ellenburg Capital Corp., and Fountains Retirement Properties, these and others have contacted me in support of this. Real estate agents--the National Association of Realtors--and housing development firms all favor this bill. AARP has written a letter to the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of the AARP in support of this legislation be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a piece of legislation introduced by Senator McCain and myself. This bill is significant, not only for Arizona, but for every State. It would authorize a cooperative arrangement between the Secretary of the Interior and a State under which State employees would be able to maintain continued operation of national parks in the State during any period in which the National Park Service is unable to. The bill is intended to mitigate the effects of a Government shutdown, or any other situation which could prevent the national parks from continuing normal operations. The recent Government shutdown affected all of us in various ways. As many of you may have heard on CNN, the administration chose to close the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. This was the first time this has happened since the park opened 76 years ago. The closure had very significant and widespread effects, not just for Arizona businesses but for visitors who had come a great distance--some as far as New Zealand--to see this crown jewel of our National Park System. Governor Symington of Arizona made an offer to assist the National [[Page S 18101]] Park Service in keeping the park open. On behalf of the State, he offered to supply the temporary funds and make State personnel available to keep the park functioning and open to visitors. The Department of the Interior refused his offer, citing a number of legal impediments to the State's plan. The purpose of the legislation that Senator McCain and I are introducing today is to overcome these impediments and provide for the legal authorization for the Department and an interested State to enter into an intergovernmental agreement that would allow a State to temporarily assume operations of a national park. I hope that others will join Senator McCain and myself in sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a piece of legislation introduced by Senator McCain and myself. This bill is significant, not only for Arizona, but for every State. It would authorize a cooperative arrangement between the Secretary of the Interior and a State under which State employees would be able to maintain continued operation of national parks in the State during any period in which the National Park Service is unable to. The bill is intended to mitigate the effects of a Government shutdown, or any other situation which could prevent the national parks from continuing normal operations. The recent Government shutdown affected all of us in various ways. As many of you may have heard on CNN, the administration chose to close the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. This was the first time this has happened since the park opened 76 years ago. The closure had very significant and widespread effects, not just for Arizona businesses but for visitors who had come a great distance--some as far as New Zealand--to see this crown jewel of our National Park System. Governor Symington of Arizona made an offer to assist the National [[Page S 18101]] Park Service in keeping the park open. On behalf of the State, he offered to supply the temporary funds and make State personnel available to keep the park functioning and open to visitors. The Department of the Interior refused his offer, citing a number of legal impediments to the State's plan. The purpose of the legislation that Senator McCain and I are introducing today is to overcome these impediments and provide for the legal authorization for the Department and an interested State to enter into an intergovernmental agreement that would allow a State to temporarily assume operations of a national park. I hope that others will join Senator McCain and myself in sponsoring this legislation.