Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. And the leader has asked that we begin that debate as soon as people are here to speak to it. Until the leader or Senator Helms arrives, I would be acting in their stead. I see Senator Feinstein is here. I do not know whether others may wish to, but I would suggest, in order to comply with the unanimous-consent agreement, that we wind up the business we are on so we can get to that.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could perhaps clarify this, it has been my understanding that we are operating under a unanimous-consent agreement which will cause the Senate to begin literally right now at 11 o'clock on the debate on the Jerusalem Embassy bill, and that the vote would then occur at 11:40. Is that a correct understanding?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The Senator from Pennsylvania is talking about the President's budget. Has anybody on the minority side offered the President's budget for a vote here?

Mr. KYL. Excuse me, if the Senator would further yield. We have been having a conversation about this. It seems that there is one other little problem, that is, in actuality there is a second President's budget in the same sense that he offered the budget earlier in the year; and the Republicans, through the Budget Committee, and the House and the Senate, have actually produced a full budget, funding each of the departments of the U.S. Congress, as well as developing all the revenues necessary for doing that. Actually, is it not the case that what the President is talking about now as his balanced budget is really a concept only, that, A, is not a full budget, B, will not be offered by anyone in his party, C, does not ever get into balance insofar as the Congressional Budget Office estimates are concerned, and, therefore, really the only thing that we do have to vote on later on this week is the Republican budget combined with the other features of what we call the reconciliation bill here?

Mr. KYL. Would the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for another question.

Mr. KYL. Just so we have this all right now, the Senator from Pennsylvania is offering up the President's budget just to see who is willing to support it. There has not been a Member of his party willing to offer it.

Mr. KYL. Perhaps we can go back in time. Did we not vote on the President's budget earlier this year? As I recall, the Senate is on record as opposing the first President's budget 99-0. Could the Senator from Pennsylvania enlighten us further on that?

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield for another question? I hate to ask all these other questions about the President's budget.

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a couple of questions?

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield for another question? I was just handed this statement and wonder if the Senator is aware of it. June O'Neill is the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and she testified in August, and I am quoting now that ``the deficits under the President's July budget would probably remain near $200 billion through the year 2005.'' The July budget is the budget the Senator from Pennsylvania is talking about and referring to in his chart here. So the red line that the Senator from Pennsylvania has demonstrated on his chart, compared to the line of zero down below, does that represent what June O'Neill, Director of CBO, says is the budget deficit remaining near $200 billion through the year 2005 under the President's figures?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment and the budget that President Clinton has submitted. The President says he supports a balanced budget and that he has submitted a balanced budget to the Congress for consideration, but the agency he praised as the best authority on budget numbers, the CBO, says otherwise. June O'Neill, the Director of CBO, testified in August that ``the deficits under the President's July budget would probably remain near $200 billion through 2005.'' So, the President's budget does not balance. Not in 7 years, 8 years, 9, or 10 years. It doesn't balance. The President claims the Congress is cutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the rich. We all know that's not true either, just as we know the President didn't propose to cut Medicare when he proposed tax cuts in his revised budget. CBO estimates that the President's revised budget would reduce the growth in Medicare by $105 billion by 2005. The President's numbers put net Medicare savings at $124 billion. So, President Clinton finds savings in Medicare as well. His budget also proposes tax cuts that would cut the growth of tax revenues by $166 billion by 2005. The President's tax cuts are more than offset by Medicare spending cuts. Yet we all know that cuts have nothing to do with Medicare. Whether we raise taxes, lower taxes or leave taxes the same, the fact is that Medicare will go bankrupt unless spending growth is slowed and the program is reformed. Last week, the President said that he could support a balanced budget in 7 years, just as we are proposing. We should vote down this budget today and give the President another chance to produce a budget that CBO will certify gets us to balance. We want to work with the President, but we don't want--and we shouldn't--go back on the promise we made to the American people to balance the budget by the year 2002. Let us vote down this budget today and consider an alternative that keeps the promises we have made. Let us balance the budget and give tax relief to hard-working American families. Mr. President, I think it is time for us to have a vote, and I simply would like to frame what the vote is, in about 30 seconds here. The Senator from Pennsylvania has offered the President's budget. We are going to be voting later this week on the Republican budget. Members will have an opportunity to decide: Do they want a budget that, according to June O'Neill, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, shows deficits of $200 billion through the year 2005, or do they want a balanced budget offered by the Republicans which will be voted on later this week? I suggest that we have the vote, that it be up or down, and that we defeat the budget that has been offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, since none of the Members of the Democratic Party were willing to offer the President's budget.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 6 p.m. today, the majority leader, or his designee, be recognized in order to move to table the pending Dorgan amendment No. 2940.

Mr. KYL. I further ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 5:40 p.m., the Senate resume amendment No. 2940 and that there shall be 20 minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to the motion to table.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am one of the original cosponsors of this legislation and would like to begin the discussion of the legislation until the majority leader and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have an opportunity to come to the floor and make their opening statements in support of S. 1322. This is historic legislation. It is important legislation, for a variety of reasons that affect everyone in this body and, frankly, most of the people in this country. It is a strong statement of foreign policy implications. It is a strong statement in support of our longstanding relationship with the State of Israel. I want to begin by describing briefly what the legislation would do and what the rationale for the legislation is. The bill begins by making a series of findings which report on the history of the status of Jerusalem, leading up to some conclusions of policy by the U.S. Government. Let me state those conclusions of policy first. The bill provides that: It is the policy of the United States that-- Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected; Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be relocated to Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. The bill then goes on to provide a mechanism for the President to establish, to relocate the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, and that that process would be completed by May 31, 1999. The bill originally provided for a beginning date in 1996, but out of deference to concerns expressed by the State Department and the President and others, that particular provision was taken out of the bill, primarily because, of course, the key is the date that the Embassy is opened, not the date that we begin construction on a new Embassy or the conversion of the existing consulate into a new Embassy. Let me now turn to the findings that are stated in this legislation and then discuss a little bit of the history of this particular matter: Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital. And that is the first finding that we make. Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel. The second finding. [It is] the seat of Israel's President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions. That is our third finding. In No. 4 we make the point that: The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths. (5) From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled [then] by Jordan. The sixth finding of this legislation is that: [[Page S 15464]] In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War. Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city. We make a point in finding No. 8 that: This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected. We further find: In 1990 the Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress, [and I am quoting from the resolution now] ``strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected.'' In finding No. 10 we make the point that: In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city. Finding No. 11 is that: The September 13, 1993, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements lays out a timetable for the resolution of ``final status'' issues, including Jerusalem. No. 12 is that: The agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area was signed May 4, 1994, beginning the five-year transitional period laid out in the Declaration of Principles. And further, in point No. 13, that: In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States Senate signed a letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher encouraging ``planning to begin now'' for relocation of the United States Embassy to the city of Jerusalem. The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country in the world except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel. That is the 14th finding of this legislation. The 15th finding is to note that: The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel. Finally and importantly we note that: In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David's entry. And, therefore, as a result of these findings, as I say, we declare it to be the policy of the United States that: Jerusalem should remain an undivided city, [2] Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and [3] the United States Embassy in Israel should be relocated to Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. As the mechanism for ensuring that this policy is adhered to, and that the Embassy is in fact opened on that date or before then, the Congress ensures that: Not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the Department of State for fiscal year 1999 for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and reports to the Congress that the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has officially opened. So, Mr. President, that is the essence of this legislation. As I said, I think it represents an important milestone in the relationship between the United States and Israel, one of the strongest friends of the United States, but a State which has its capital in the city of Jerusalem and the United States Embassy in Tel Aviv. This legislation remedies that and ensures that the new Embassy will open by May 31, 1999, in Jerusalem. Let me go into a little bit more of the history of this, in order to, I think, assure everyone of the reasons why this is so important and why we need to do it now. The United States Government has refused official recognition of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem for various reasons since Israel's inception, at first in line with the never implemented 1947 U.N. General Assembly partition recommendation for western Palestine. U.S. policy supported a special international status, corpus separatum, as it was called, for the city of Jerusalem. The impractical notion actually appealed to neither the Jews nor the Arabs, and in 1948, the Arab Legion conquered east Jerusalem, including the old city, as part of the general Arab military offensive to prevent Israel from coming into being. Israel retained control over west Jerusalem. When east Jerusalem was under Arab rule, many Jews were prohibited from visiting their holy places and the synagogues in the old city were razed and Jewish burial places were desecrated. In 1967, as Egypt and Syria moved again toward war with Israel, the Israel Government urged King Hussein of Jordan to sit out the fighting and promised the territories he controlled would be left alone if he did so. The King failed to heed the warning. He attacked Israel and, as we all know, in the ensuing fighting he lost east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel, under the Labor Party leadership at the time, declared that Jerusalem will remain undivided forever, as Israel's capital, and all people will have free access to their holy places. Since 1967, the policy and practice of the U.S. Government regarding Jerusalem has, unfortunately, been somewhat inconsistent. United States officials have often explained our Government's unwillingness to recognize Israeli sovereignty over any of Jerusalem on the grounds that the city status should be resolved through Arab- Israeli negotiations, or at that particular moment in time it was difficult, if not a good thing to do, in view of the relationships existing between the parties at those times. On the other hand, our Government has repeatedly said that we do not favor redivision of the city. Yet, the State Department makes a point of prohibiting United States officials from visiting east Jerusalem under Israeli auspices. In other words, for purposes of official visits of Jerusalem, the United States Government distinguishes between east and west Jerusalem. But as proposals have been made over the years to move the United States Embassy to west Jersualem--I note west Jerusalem and not east Jerusalem--the State Department refused on the grounds that we do not distinguish between east and west Jerusalem, and do not recognize anyone's sovereign claims to any of Jerusalem. The only thing consistent about United States policy on Jerusalem, unfortunately, is its antagonism to Israel's claim there. In my view, this policy is unprincipled, notwithstanding the fact that on many occasions it was urged in support of positions on which we were supporting the Government of Israel. But I still believe, and I think one of the reasons for this legislation is, that the policy has not been viewed as principled, but rather entirely too pragmatic depending upon the circumstances of the time, and that view, in my personal opinion, is unworthy of the United States, and, frankly, as I will explain later, I believe unhelpful to the cause of peace. Notwithstanding the several peace agreements that Israel has signed with its neighbors, Arab enemies of the Jewish state continue to insist that Israel is not legitimate, that it has no right to exist on what they deem to be Arab land. The international community, acting through the League of Nations and in the United Nations, based its acknowledgement of Jewish people's national rights in Palestine on the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine. Though the long war against Zionism and Israel is now checked on the military level, it continues on the battlefield of ideas. That is why the actions of the United States with regard to a very tangible matter, the location of our Embassy, is so very, very important. It matters what position the United States takes in this battleground of ideas. And in this particular war, Israel's enemies have worked to not legitimize Israel, to deny the significance of the historical connection that I referred to before between the Jews and Zion, and to foster hope that someday Israel, perhaps then abandoned by its friends and exhausted by the unremitting hostility and violence of its foes, can be made to disappear, first as the Christian Crusaders of the Middle Ages wore worn down and ultimately expelled from the Holy Land. The belief that Israel's friends are unreliable and Israel's resolve is weak is a major impediment to true Arab-Israeli peace. Unrealistic expectations on the part of Arab parties about Jerusalem make peace harder to achieve. [[Page S 15465]] The Jerusalem Embassy relocation bill aims to close the question of United States support for Israel's rights in its own capital. I want to restate the point, Mr. President, because it is the critical reason why this legislation is brought before the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives at this time. This bill, the Jerusalem Embassy relocation bill, aims to close the question of United States support for Israel's rights in its own capital. It aims at the heart of the legitimacy issue, for Jerusalem is the essence of the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine. The interest of peace, in my view, is not served by anyone thinking that Israel can be divided from the United States over the Jerusalem issue. It is an error to suppose the United States is more effective diplomatically when we pose as a neutral, honest broker between the Israelis and the Arabs seeking peace in the region. U.S. influence does not derive from any claim of neutrality on our part in this particular conflict, although it is important that Arabs interested in peace understand the important bona fides of the United States in this question of peace. Rather, U.S. influence, I submit, derives from our status as a great power, the intensity of our worthy convictions, and our loyalty to our friends. And, if all three of those circumstances are well understood by all of the parties, it will be much easier for a true and lasting peace to be achieved, a peace which is so fragile that it can be jeopardized by the question of whether the United States should relocate its Embassy to west Jerusalem, a peace which is bound to fail on other grounds and, therefore, a peace not worth having. We want a lasting peace. The Israelis want a lasting peace. And I know that Arabs of good will want a lasting peace. And a lasting peace is based upon a bedrock of good faith and principles that are not inconsistent between the peacemaking parties. If there are fundamental--fundamental--differences between the peacemaking parties, then the peace becomes too fragile to be sustained. And after thousands of years of conflict in this region, Mr. President, the people of this region deserve to have the opportunity to live in peace with each other as friends and under circumstances in which there is not always the cloud of uncertainty and even war and when there is not the cloud of danger in the streets which exists as it does today. The many, many people of this body and the House of Representatives which support this legislation do so because we believe it will send a principled and constructive signal to all of the parties in the Arab- Israeli negotiations and establish the United States position in support of the State of Israel in clear and unmistakable terms. Mr. President, before I turn the podium over, I want to acknowledge a couple of other points of view and some people who have been very instrumental in bringing this legislation forward. The majority leader, Senator Dole, has made stirring speeches in support of this legislation and believes in his heart that it is the best way to proceed in order to make the kind of statement that I spoke of a moment ago. And he is joined by all of the original cosponsors with that idea in mind. There are other Members of this body who have worked very hard to develop the language that would be most satisfactory to the Members of this body as well as to the President and to his Cabinet. Senator Lieberman from Connecticut is one of the people who has worked very long and hard to bring these ideas together and to try to achieve a very broad consensus so that when this legislation passes, it is with a broad bipartisan degree of support and, hopefully, the support of the administration as well. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is here, the Senator from California, and Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey have been engaged in meetings. They have to some degree a somewhat different point of view as to how this legislation will work out in terms of the negotiations that are currently pending between the Israelis and the Arabs in the region. But it is their desire, no less than mine and the other cosponsors, that we work toward the day when we can achieve the situation that this bill would achieve--namely, the relocation of the Embassy in Jerusalem. So let there be no doubt that, though some Members of this body may have somewhat different views as to how best to achieve this objective, we are united in the objective, and we are determined to reach a point where the legislation can move forward with a strong bipartisan degree of consensus and eventually the support of the administration. Mr. President, with that opening statement and with the desire that when Senator Dole or Senator Helms are able to come to the floor to make their opening statements in support of the bill, I would be happy to relinquish the floor at this time to someone on the other side who would wish to make a statement. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL. All Senators should therefore be informed, Mr. President, that there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to table the Dorgan amendment at 6 o'clock this evening. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. KYL. Excuse me, Mr. President, reserving the right to object, under the terms the Senator from California has outlined, namely that she will speak only on the Jerusalem resolution, after which another quorum call would be called for.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I, too, would like to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks an editorial from the New York Times of May 29, 1995, along with a brief with respect to the constitutional prerogatives of the President and the Congress, relating to matters of this kind.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we are going to be taking up later on this week what we call in the Senate the reconciliation bill. Some of the Members from the other side have been talking about that bill this morning as it pertains to balancing the Federal budget. I would like to speak to some of the things that Senators addressed this morning, and also to the President's plans for dealing with our budget deficit over the course of the next 7 years. Mr. President, Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad were just on the floor, and I think Senator Hollings spoke earlier to this problem of the Federal budget deficit as it pertains to the Social Security surplus. They objected to the fact that the Republican balanced budget did not account for the fact that the Federal Government is spending that Social Security surplus and, therefore, makes it more like we are in balance when, in fact, we are spending money that does not really belong to the general Government; it belongs to the Social Security surplus. If you exclude that surplus, then, in fact, they charge that we would be running a deficit of about $100 billion in the year 2002. Of course, it is true, that if the U.S. Government were not spending the Social Security surplus funds, then those funds would not be reflected in the budget and, obviously, there would be a deficit beyond that which has been calculated by the CBO. But, Mr. President, the Senators that I just mentioned, the Senators from North Dakota and the Senator from South Carolina, while they have been consistent in speaking out in support of segregating those Social Security trust funds, I note have, with most of the other Members of both Houses of the legislative branch of Government, failed to refrain from voting for budgets that use those Social Security funds. My point is that everybody likes to talk about not spending those Social Security funds, but the fact is they vote for budgets that use the Social Security funds. In 1993, all three of the Senators aforementioned voted for the budget resolution and, by the way, the reference is rollcall vote 94, April 1, 1993. Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad, and Senator Hollings-- all three--voted for the budget resolution that spent every dime of the Social Security surplus and, by its own admission, left a projected deficit of about $200 billion, even taking into account the Social Security surplus at the end of its 5 year period. They all voted for the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, on August 6, 1993, that relied on the use of the Social Security surplus. Senator Dorgan, speaking on behalf of the budget reconciliation bill, said on the floor on August 6: The fact is, we are going to decide today whether we do something about this crippling deficit or whether we continue to do nothing. And then he voted for the budget resolution that spent every dime of the Social Security surplus. They all voted for the budget resolution in 1994, that is May 12, 1994, that spent every dime of the Social Security surplus and, again, by its own admission, left a projected deficit of about $200 billion, even taking into account the Social Security surplus at the end of its 5 year period. Excluding the Social Security surplus, the budget resolution in 1994 provided for deficits of $239 billion in 1995, rising to $300 billion in 1999. Yet, Senators Dorgan, Conrad, and Hollings all voted for it, and I note, by the way, Mr. President, that that compares with our budget which, excluding Social Security, would go from $245 billion in 1996 to about a $100 billion deficit in the year 2002 and, of course, if you do not count Social Security, according to CBO we would be in balance by then with a zero deficit. These three Senators are claiming that the Republican budget is a phony budget because it counts Social Security, the same as it has always done. But our budget, as I said, leaves a deficit of zero at the end of the 5-year period--zero--and that is certified by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office. If you excluded the surplus, the question is, what would you do with it? And I ask the question of those three Senators, because I think it is odd, it is strange that they come here today criticizing the Republican budget because it allows the expenditure of those funds when, in fact, all three of them have supported the same practice over and over and over again. So what would they do with those funds? The surplus, of course, is invested in U.S. Government securities. By definition, it is borrowed by the Treasury. We do not put our money under a mattress any more than anybody else does. So do these three Senators all contend that we should borrow the money, pay interest to the trust funds, and then let the money sit idle, not do anything? That is a poor use of the funds. Perhaps they would be willing to join us in finding a way to allow people to invest that in the private sector as a way of creating a surplus to Social Security earnings.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will conclude by making this point. If we can invest that money in the private sector, it would both return a supplement to the people who are receiving Social Security in the future and prevent the general Government from expending the funds so that it would truly be used for Social Security purposes. I hope that our colleagues' ultimate purpose is not to support what President Clinton has suggested, using pension funds for ``economically targeted investments.'' In other words, pension funds would not be invested soundly for the benefit of retirees or, in this case, Social Security recipients, but used to advance social programs that benefit third parties. I hope that is not what they are talking about. I hope it is more a political point they are making. Again, Mr. President, I point out that we would all like not to use those funds for general expenditure purposes, and we will be talking in the future about how we can assure those funds are used strictly for the benefit of Social Security retirees. I believe we should be supporting the Republican budget which the CBO confirms gets us to a zero deficit by the year 2002. [[Page S 15442]] Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I was in the House of Representatives when this was proposed. I remember a lot of my Democratic colleagues who were not happy about supporting a Btu tax. The Senator from New Mexico will recall that the House Members ended up supporting that budget with the request for tax increases, including the Btu tax increase. Of course, the Senator from Arizona, then a Member of the House, and most of the other Republicans voted against the Btu tax increase, but most of the Democrats voted for it. I know they were greatly distressed when the Senate then turned it down and, in effect, were critical of the President for making them walk the plank when there was never really a chance that that tax would be imposed at the end of the day. I agree with the Senator from New Mexico that it is unfortunate to cast the blame on the Congress, including a lot of good Democrat Members of Congress, who did not want to increase taxes as much as the President, and certainly the Republican Members of the Congress. The President, therefore, was pointing the finger in the wrong direction when he alleged that it was the Congress that made him do it. It is like that old comedian that said, ``The devil made me do it.'' It was really the President himself who offered the tax increase to the American people.