Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me make a couple of very brief comments before I take my place in the chair. I respect the views presented by the Senator from California. I will make additional comments with respect to the issue of the waiver as follows: One of the problems that we have had with this issue, generally, and one of the reasons why Senator Moynihan brought his letter to the Senate, and why all of us have been pursuing legislation now to actually bring a close to the issue and make it clear that we will move our Embassy to Jerusalem, is that the United States has always found a reason not to do it. At the time, those seemed like valid positions. Obviously, we would not want a waiver to provide a mechanism for continued lip service to the concept without actually moving toward the actual relocation of the Embassy. That is why there has been some question about how waiver language should be inserted into the bill. Also, there is some oddity, I think, in the matter that locating our Embassy in a country's capital would actually be deemed to be contrary to the national security interest of the United States. It seems to me that one has to stretch it a little bit to find that to be the case. Yet, I know there are those who believe that, even at this point in time, that is exactly the case. I think it is important that if there is to be some kind of waiver, it not be a waiver that the President can exercise because he has a policy dispute with the Congress on when and under what circumstances the Embassy should be moved. Such a waiver should be exercised by the President only because he finds that the national security interests of the United States require that. [[Page S 15470]] And the security of the United States is not necessarily the same as peace in the Middle East, which is not necessarily the same as a controversy between Arabs and Israelis over the status of peace discussions. So simply because it makes some Arabs anxious or angry, or gives them a political issue, is not, I think, a reason why such a waiver would ever be exercised. I also think it is important that the whole world understand one point very clearly--and I think, on this, we are united--that when we talk about the final status of Jerusalem, which is subject to negotiation between the parties there, no one should suffer under any illusion that the United States feels itself bound not to locate our Embassy in West Jerusalem pending the outcome of those negotiations. The State of Israel's rights with respect to west Jerusalem, and our obligations and entitlements to put our Embassy in west Jerusalem, are in no way dependent on those final negotiations which do not go to the political status of west Jerusalem insofar as the Israelis are concerned. To the point of the constitutional concerns alluded to by the Senator from California, there are differing opinions on this. I am a very strong advocate of the power of the President in this regard. I do not come lightly to the point of view that Congress has a prerogative in this case to require the relocation of the Embassy. I think it is good that the Record contain both the arguments in support of the Presidential and congressional power in that regard. I am delighted to see them both included in the Record at the conclusion of this debate. I think it is important that the understanding be with all parties that whatever kind of waiver language may or may not be included in this bill, it is a temporary waiver only. We are not talking about the ability of the President to simply continue year after year after year, saying, gee, I am really with you on this, but I think I find a reason why we do not want to do it right now. That is the intent of any waiver. I know that is not what the Senator from California was saying. Should there by any waiver language included, I want it to be crystal clear on the record that nobody is talking about a waiver which, however open-ended it may or may not be, would allow a President, every 6 months, to simply say that because he has a different point of view than Congress on this, he is going to refuse to implement what the Congress has directed him to do, finding that there is somehow a national security interest of the United States involved. Mr. President, I conclude by making this point. I think the importance of this issue is illustrated by the fact that we have had difficulty in arriving at the exact language because everybody is concerned about what the impact of it will be. Those are very legitimate concerns. I am going to conclude by addressing myself to those concerns. This is not a tangential issue. It is symbolic in one respect, but sometimes symbolism is extraordinarily important. In this case it is, regardless of how you come down on this issue. If you are an Arab, for example, one can argue that this would make you very anxious and concerned. Therefore, the symbolism of it is very important. There are those, in fact, who believe that it would be so distressing to certain Arabs if the United States exercises its legitimate right to put our Embassy where we want to, particularly since it is the capital of the host country, and that should not be considered to be a policy matter with respect to our position in these negotiations. But the fact of the matter is that some people will see it as that. Nobody should be allowed to use--in a political campaign or in the conduct of terrorism, or in negotiations--the fact that a country like the United States exercises its right to put its Embassy in the capital of the host country. That is not a legitimate concern. So while I understand the politics of it, that is different from the legitimacy of the issue. The final point is this: Some people have said, well, even though it is an irrational and illegitimate argument, people will make it. As a result, it could bring a halt to the peace negotiations even. People might stop talking peace. There may be more demonstrations over this, even though it is not a legitimate position to be taken. I will respond to that in this fashion because it goes to the heart of the debate. No one knows for sure. That is a very legitimate concern among those of us who are very, very supportive of the peace process and want it to succeed. Certainly, the people in the region feel that much more even than any of us in this body can. I think it is also important to reflect upon the history of U.S. foreign policy and to note that every time the United States has been firm, fair, resolute, principled, consistent in its investigation of friendships and positions in the world, the world has been better off for that firm, principled expression. It did not always suit nervous nellies during the cold war, that Presidents like President Reagan made firm statements about our commitments, calling the Soviet Union what at that time it was and many Russians since have confirmed. Sure, in many respects it was an evil empire. It made people very nervous when President Reagan said it. Many people say had the United States not taken firm positions, had President Reagan not spoken so clearly, that evil empire would still exist today. Had we not made it crystal clear to the Chinese that they could not invade Quemoy and Matsu Islands back in the 1960's, they might have done so. Had we made it clearer to Hitler that he would not get away with an attack on Poland, perhaps he would not have done so. Mr. President, our history is replete with examples of situations in which history has shown that the world frequently was thrown into conflict in which great human suffering and loss resulted because leaders at the time were not firm enough and clear enough in the expression of the principles that stood behind their country's positions. In this case, I think a firm, clear statement of something as simple as the United States exercising its right to put its Embassy in the capital of a country as we have with every other country in the world except Jerusalem, I think to the extent that the United States makes that statement very clearly, we advance the ultimate cause of fundamental peace, a peace that is lasting. To that extent, I think it is important that we do that prior to the time that those negotiations are to be concluded. I think that deals generally with the waiver issue however that issue is ultimately resolved. I see that Senator Levin is here, who I know has a very strong interest in the matter, as well as Senator Helms, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. I relinquish the majority position to Senator Helms and Senator Levin, if he would like to speak, although I want to make a point, if I may, that the unanimous consent to lift the preceding quorum call by the Senator from California was premised upon the point that it was limited to the discussion of this issue and that it could not be used to relate to an amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. Subject to that agreement, I am happy to yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, May 29, 1995] To Promote Peace, Move the Embassy (By Douglas J. Feith) Washington.--There is something more than Presidential politics behind the bills in Congress to relocate the United States Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It is sensible policy. If American support for Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem remains an open question, will this help promote peace? No. Alternatively, are Israel's Arab interlocutors likelier to make the philosophical adjustments and political concessions necessary for peace if they know that America's support for Israel on Jerusalem is a closed question? This view--endorsed by the key Republican sponsors of the bills, Senators Bob Dole and Jon Kyl and the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich--has logic, though not the Clinton Administration, on its side. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Arab-Jewish conflict over Palestine has been a fight over legitimacy. The Zionists have asserted that the Jews have the right to a state in at least part of Palestine. Arab anti-Zionists have argued that all of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River is Arab land and that the Jews have no right to a state there. In the conflict, periods of violence have alternated with periods of quiet, though hostility has persisted throughout. Quiet is a type of peace, but in recent years diplomacy [[Page S 15471]] has aimed at a higher type--peace that is formal and de jure. But Israel's experiences with Egypt and the Palestine Liberation Organization demonstrate that formal accords do not necessarily reflect or produce the highest form of peace--that is, peace based on an absence of hostility. True peace is possible only if Israel's Arab neighbors change their hearts and minds on the fundamental issue of Israel's legitimacy. What might facilitate that change? When Israel appeared vulnerable, it did not achieve peace, or even peace talks. Only after being forced to acknowledge the strength of Israel's position--its military power, its enduring ties to the United States, and, since the end of the cold war, our unchallenged global predominance--did some Arab powers abandon rejectionist positions and start negotiating. If Israel's antagonists bow to unpleasant realities and lower unrealistic expectations, the peace process may produce not merely signing ceremonies but real peace. Inasmuch as the essence of the Arab-Israeli conflict is legitimacy, the essence of the legitimacy issue is Israel's right to sovereignty in Jerusalem. If Israelis do not have the right to sovereignty there, they can hardly justify sovereignty anywhere. Jerusalem has been central to Jewish nationhood for 3,000 years. The Jews' national movement, after all, is Zionism, Zion being Jerusalem. The Arabs understand this, too, which is why the importance of Jerusalem in Arab politics, diplomacy, philosophy and literature increased as the struggle against Zionism intensified. By relocating our embassy to Jerusalem, we would end our anomalous policy of refusing to recognize Israel's sovereignty in its own capital. We would proclaim that Israel's legitimacy in Zion is not an open question for us. This would signal that we expect all parties to the conflict--not just Israel--to pursue peace on the basis of realism. In the ongoing Arab-Israeli negotiations, moving the embassy would not prejudice any issue that is actually open. This is why even dovish voices, like that of Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin, have categorically endorsed the bill. The Government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin says it will in time negotiate Jerusalem issues, but not Israeli sovereignty. In this it deserves our support. Across the political spectrum in Israel and among Jews worldwide, there is a profound commitment to retaining Jerusalem forever as the undivided capital. The cause of peace will be served by whatever helps persuade Yasir Arafat that he will not get American support or Israeli consent to divide Jerusalem and establish part of it as the capital of a new Arab state. The necessary adjustment in expectations on the Arab side would be difficult and even painful. Passionate cries--and worse--would ensue, but in the end the process would be constructive. Like all American pro-Israel initiatives, the bill to move the embassy is being deprecated in certain quarters as a cynical play for political points with American Jews. Such criticism is itself deeply cynical. Every Congressional initiative pleases some constituencies and displeases others. Each is supported by some politicians for substantive by some politicians for substantive reasons, some for political reasons and many for both types of reasons. But support for Israel as a fellow democracy and strategic ally has been sustained by a long line of Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses. It reflects the nation's strong sympathy for Israel as evinced in public opinion polls decade after decade since 1948. The automatic assumption that a pro-Israel initiative is nothing more than pandering is unfair and at odds with America's national interest as most Americans see it.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to pass on that the majority leader, with whom I was meeting, asked me to make the point that he is enormously gratified at the support over the years and, in particular, the support of the Senator from New York for the bill on which he is about to speak and without the support of the Senator from New York, obviously we would not be nearly as far along in this process as we are. The majority leader appreciates that very much. unanimous-consent agreements

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to continue discussing the same subject that the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Minnesota have been discussing, and to do so by, first of all, focusing on some of the myths that have been created by the President and by some of his supporters here in the Senate. I am talking about the difference between the budget fantasy and the reality that faces us here today. It is almost an ``Alice in Wonderland'' exercise where words take on meanings that are only in the eye of the beholder and have no relationship to actual reality. Frankly, they are the last desperate attempts by proponents of big Government to cling to the status quo, which means more spending, higher taxes, and greater regulation. That is really what this exercise in opposition to a balanced budget and tax cuts is all about. Many of the Democrats cannot believe, let alone accept, that the American people overwhelmingly rejected their approach to governing in that way in last fall's election. Rather than attempting to fulfill the mandate which the American people gave us, they are now cynically pandering to the mandates while doing everything they can to undermine it. In this topsy-turvy ``Alice in Wonderland'' change, the meaning-of- words situation they have created, spending cuts are increases; spending increases are cuts. For example, claiming that a Medicare spending increase of $2,000 per person over the next 7 years is actually a cut when, in fact, it is a $2,000 increase. Tax cuts, they say, are spending increases. Tax relief for families become tax cuts for the rich. A volunteer in AmeriCorps is actually paid by the taxpayers $20,000, $30,000, or $40,000 a year. Tax payments, the President says, are contributions. Preserving Medicare is slashing Medicare. And, of course, bankrupting Medicare is saving it. President Clinton is even now so bold as to blame Republicans, not a single one of whom supported his budget in 1993, for forcing him to raise taxes. It is like ``the old devil made me do it'' skit that we used to see on TV. He says he wishes he had not increased the taxes. I, too, wish he had not increased taxes. But at least our attempt to reduce taxes by $245 billion is a beginning, a partial rollback of this tax increase which he now wishes he had not imposed upon the American people. Here are some examples of increases that the Democrats claim are cuts. The Republican Party has said all year that we would not balance the budget at the expense of Social Security. The budget reconciliation bill will [[Page S 15334]] not touch Social Security retirement benefits or cost-of-living adjustments, COLA's. Social Security will increase 43 percent, from $336 billion this year to $482 billion 7 years from now. Medicare--we are going to increase Medicare spending, not cut it. Medicare will grow from $178 billion in 1995 to $274 billion in 2002, a 54-percent increase. Spending per beneficiary will rise from an average of $4,800 today to more than $6,700 in the year 2002, almost a $2,000 increase, as I said before. Student loans--we have heard a lot about that. Student loan volume will grow from $24 billion in 1995 to $36 billion in the year 2002, a 50-percent increase. The maximum Pell grant will be raised to $2,440 next year, the highest level it has ever been. By the way, we could send a whole lot more needy kids to school with Pell grants, eight or nine for every single AmeriCorps volunteer that we pay a salary to. Here are some examples of cuts that the Democrats claim are actually increases. Defense spending declines from $270 billion in 1995 to $264 billion in 1996. That is $6 billion less. Defense spending is not going up. It is going down. Here is an example of spending increases that many of the Democrats not only call cuts but claim are tax increases as well. Only in Washington can such distorted logic have any semblance of credibility. Talking first about the earned income tax credit, we will spend more on the EITC program every year between now and the year 2002. Spending will rise from $19.8 billion in 1995 to $22.8 billion in the year 2002. The maximum credit for families with one child will rise from $2,094 in 1995 to $2,615 in the year 2002. For families with two children, it rises from $3,100 next year to $3,888 in the near 2002, and the examples go on. The Democrats not only call that a cut, but a tax increase on low- income families. If you are eligible, you get a check from the Government to offset any income tax liability you might have under that program, plus any excess to which you are entitled. Eighty-four percent of the program costs are cash grants. The program is run through the Tax Code because it is more efficient. It requires less bureaucracy. But it is just not possible that you can be hit by a tax increase if you get back all of your tax payments plus more. It cannot be a tax increase. Here are some examples of tax cuts that they claim are spending increases. They claim that allowing individuals and businesses to keep more of what they earn is a subsidy that is equivalent to direct spending. But as Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr., pointed out in a column in the Washington Times on September 18 of this year, I am quoting: A subsidy means the Government is giving money to you that originally belonged to somebody else. Dairy farmers, for example, are subsidized. That means they get money that the tax man extracted from the taxpayers. ``Next word: deduction. That's when you were allowed to count some of your income as off limits to the tax man. You can take a deduction for mortgage interest. A portion of your own money stays in the bank.'' Democrats claim the tax relief for families is a tax cut for the rich. The fact is over 70 percent of the tax cuts included in the Finance Committee bill go to families with incomes of less than $75,000 a year. Let us talk about the AmeriCorps for a moment. The GAO estimated that the program cost nearly $27,000 for each ``volunteer,'' and I put quotation marks around that word ``volunteer'' since they are paid that salary. In fact, that salary is more than the average American earns in a year. Paying people makes them employees, in my view, not volunteers. For the average of $20,000 to $30,000 cost per year for each student in AmeriCorps, as I said, eight needy students could get Pell grants at $2,400 apiece. The fact is Americans aged 18 and up volunteer 19.5 billion hours of their time, which is a 50-percent increase in the number of hours since 1981. We do not need to pay people to be volunteers under AmeriCorps. Another one of these Alice in Wonderland meaning changes is calling taxes contributions. Referring to tax increases he would be proposing, President Clinton, in an address to the public from the Oval Office on February 15, 1993, said: We just have to face the fact that to make the changes our country needs more Americans must contribute today so that all Americans can do better tomorrow. I have an idea, Mr. President. Let us just call these contributions voluntary and we will see how much in the way of contributions are received. There is nothing voluntary about the income tax. On Medicare, President Clinton says, ``The Republican plan would dismantle Medicare as we know it''--the Washington Post, September 16, 1995--despite the fact that six Medicare Board of Trustees, five of whom are Clinton administration appointees, issued a report in April, with which we are all familiar, which stated that ``The Medicare Program is clearly unsustainable in its present form and will become insolvent within the next 6 to 11 years.'' Mr. President, the reality is clear. Medicare benefits will be cut off completely unless we act now. If Medicare goes bankrupt, which could happen as early as the year 2002, according to the trustees, by law no payments could be made to Medicare beneficiaries for hospital care, doctor services, or any other covered benefit. Even the Washington Post has condemned the duplicity of those who would oppose solving this Medicare problem. In a lead editorial on September 25, 1995, the Post wrote: The Democrats have fabricated the Medicare tax connection because it's useful politically. It allows them to attack and duck responsibility, both at the same time. We think it's wrong. The editorial, by the way, was entitled, ``Medagogues, Cont'd.'' It is no wonder, Mr. President, that the American people are frustrated and angry. We need to keep the promise we made to the American people to balance the budget by the year 2002. The Congressional Budget Office has certified that our budget will do just that. We have abided by the Congressional Budget Office, the agency that the President praised for its accuracy in budget forecasting in 1993. But while we have abided by the CBO's scorekeeping, the same entity the President praised 2 years ago, the President himself has changed the numbers to make his alternative budget balance by the year 2005. He has used the numbers from his own office rather than the Congressional Budget Office. As former CBO Director Robert Reischauer put it, ``He lowered the bar and then gracefully jumped over it.'' Let me close by saying that it is unfortunate that the President would change the numbers in order to get his budget balanced rather than face the tough realities we have had to face in putting together a budget which we know will balance by the year 2002. I think we owe it to our children and grandchildren to do that, not to hand them the debt that we have accumulated over the years we have been here. We have a historic opportunity this year. Not since 1969 has Congress had a chance to vote on a balanced budget. And I do not think we can miss this opportunity. It is not just because of the politics of it. It is because of the children and grandchildren who are going to follow us and who do not deserve to have to pay off the debts that we have accumulated. So I am very hopeful that we can support the budget that will be presented, the reconciliation bill that will be before us next week. I think if we do that the American people will say thank you for keeping the commitment that you made to us in 1994. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, earlier this year the Congress had the opportunity to pass the balanced budget amendment and put an end to chronic budget deficits. As we know, the amendment failed by a single vote. A number of those who opposed it did so saying it was not needed, that Congress could balance the budget if only it had the courage and the will to do so. Well, those of us who heard the message that the American people sent so loudly and clearly just about a year ago pledged that with or without the balanced budget amendment, we would work to balance the budget by the year 2002, just as we promised the American people last fall. Failing to address the budget problem not only threatens the economic well-being of generations to come, but also the ability of our Government today to respond to our needs. The national debt now amounts to about $18,500 for every man, woman, and child in the country. In 1994, every American paid an average of about $800 in taxes just to pay the interest on the national accident. My new grandson, born just 5 months ago, can expect to pay $187,000 in his lifetime just to service the debt, just to pay the interest on the debt. I cannot look at him without thinking of that obligation, without thinking of our responsibility to every child like him where this Congress and the Congresses before us have run up the credit card debt and, in effect, as we leave the stage, we will be handing that to our children and our grandchildren. It is immoral, Mr. President. The gross interest on the national debt will amount to nearly $300 billion this year. That is $300 billion of lost opportunity now, money that cannot be spent on health care or housing for the poor, nutrition, law enforcement, and defense--anything else. We cannot afford not to balance the budget given these realities. A failure to balance the budget means condemning our children and grandchildren to a declining standard of living just because we are unwilling to pay our bills today. Balancing the budget will not only pay dividends to future generations in that they will have less in taxes to service the debt and thus get more out of their Government for every dollar they pay, it will also pay dividends to our generation as well. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that a balanced budget by the year 2002 would facilitate a reduction in long-term real interest rates of between 1 and 2 percent. For business, a 2-percent interest rate reduction would result in lower investment costs, opening up new opportunities for job creation and business expansion. A 2-percent reduction on a typical 30-year $80,000 mortgage would save homeowners $107 a month, that is $1,284 a year, or over $38,000 over the life of the mortgage. A 2-percent reduction in interest rates on a 4-year $15,000 new car loan would save the car buyer $676. A 2-percent reduction on a typical 10-year student loan for a 4-year private college would save students and their parents nearly $9,000 in interest costs, an 8.5-percent cost reduction. Critics will not argue these points, but they are not willing to make the difficult choices to balance the budget either. They are avoiding their responsibility. Frankly, as the Senator from Georgia pointed out a moment ago, President Clinton has no plan to balance the budget and, therefore, must accept key responsibility today. The CBO projects that the President's so-called balanced budget plan would result in $200 billion annual deficits for the foreseeable future. So that is not an alternative. Let us put the Republican budget into perspective. This year, the Federal Government will spend about $1.59 trillion, a sum of money that none of us can really comprehend, Mr. President, but that is $1,590,000,000,000. In 7 years, by the year 2002, we will be spending $1.88 trillion-- $1,880,000,000,000 that is an additional $300 million, or an increase of 18 percent. One of the areas of growth is Medicare. Even under the Republican budget, Medicare spending will rise from about $178 billion this year to $274 billion in the fiscal year 2002, that is an average increase of about 6.4 percent per year. Medicare spending will be 54 percent higher by the year 2002. Mr. President, I was just informed before I came over to the floor that my office has begun receiving a lot of telephone calls from seniors who have received a bulletin from the AARP warning of a cut in Medicare. With all due respect to the people who prepared that bulletin, I think we need to assure the senior citizens of this country that that bulletin is wrong; that they need not be worried about a cut in Medicare because, as I just said, under the budget that is being criticized, Medicare spending will rise from $178 billion today to $274 billion 7 years from now. In other words, we will be spending 50 percent more in 7 years than we spend today. Total Medicare spending will be $1.6 trillion over the next 7 years, 73 percent higher than what was spent over the previous 7 years. And on average, per beneficiary, Medicare spending will increase from about $4,800 per person this year to $6,700 by the year 2002. That is a $1,900 increase. I think that it is totally irresponsible for any organization to be scaring America's senior citizens, asserting that a $1,900 increase is a cut. The money that we are spending on Medicare is a lot of money, but we believe it is necessary to care for our senior citizens. We also know that it is necessary to prevent the Medicare Program from going broke. The Republican budget will slow the growth in Medicare because the Medicare trustees have warned us that without doing so, the system will go broke. But are we cutting the growth in Medicare in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich? No. Revenues in fiscal year 1996 are projected to be $1.4 trillion. By 2002, they will total $1.88 trillion. That is 34 percent more than this year. So revenues to the Federal Treasury are increasing, not declining. We are proposing that those revenues just not increase quite so much, just like we are proposing that spending just not increase by quite so much; that a tax cut is not reducing the revenues to the Federal Treasury. They are still going up by 34 percent. Many in the opposition do not want to concede that Medicare spending constraint is needed because, frankly, they like big Government--the Government that chooses the doctors people see, the procedures that they perform. They do not want to see tax relief because it deprives them of the revenue to expand Government even further into our lives. Let me conclude by talking for a moment about our proposed tax cuts. Tax relief is really the dividend we are giving the American people from the downsizing of the other parts of the Government: The $200 million reduction in the congressional budget, which the President has vetoed; elimination of the Commerce Department, which he [[Page S 15191]] threatens to veto; reforming welfare to get people back to work, to strengthen families and force deadbeat dads to pay support; and consolidate and eliminate other programs. So the tax relief is the dividend to the American people for Congress downsizing this Government. Some oppose tax relief because they do not believe the American people can make better decisions on how to spend the money that they worked so hard to earn. The Republican Party puts faith in the American people and the States. I would not be rich but I would be wealthier than I am if I had a dollar for every time somebody on the other side of the aisle proclaimed that it was necessary for the Federal Government to make these decisions because we cannot trust the States. Mr. President, you and I know it is a whole lot easier to influence directly the people at the State and local levels who are making the decisions than it is to get the Federal Government to slow down, to change direction and to begin moving in the right direction. The opposition's bottom line is, support big Government. They do not want to see programs and agencies eliminated. But the bottom line is that the Government is the problem. As Bill Bennett, former Education Secretary said earlier this year in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee: We have created a nanny state that takes too much from us in order to do too much for us. This has created inefficiency, sapped individual responsibility, and intruded on personal liberty. Mr. President, I could not say it better. It is time for us to take a stand. Congress cannot duck its responsibility and neither can the President.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I know that the Senator from West Virginia wishes to speak. I am just going to take a moment to agree with the comments from the Senator from Tennessee a moment ago expressed about having the vote on [[Page S 15091]] the term limits resolution. Most of us who support term limits want to have that vote at a time when we have the best opportunity to win it. And the reason that we sent a letter to the majority leader asking him to hold the vote until sometime in the future when we thought we had that support or might have that support was precisely because we wanted to have the vote scheduled when we thought we could win it. There will be more time for the supporters to mobilize support in the interim period of time. And I just wanted to express my appreciation to the majority leader for acceding to the wishes of the majority of those of us who would prefer to have the vote later. I also want to say however there has not been any greater advocate from term limits than the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, and that if he wishes to have a vote on the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, I naturally would support that. But I just wanted to make it very clear that the only reason that the majority leader would defer the vote on the term-limits proposal itself is because those of us who support it have requested that he do so. I appreciate the willingness of the majority leader to accommodate us in that regard. I appreciate, Mr. President, the opportunity to speak here for this moment. I would suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Yes.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes right now and speak in support of this legislation. I appreciate the Senator from Utah bringing it to the floor, and I also appreciate the kind comment from the Senator from Nevada. [[Page S 14629]] This is clearly a bipartisan effort. Obviously, this legislation is going to pass. I just wanted to indicate where this came from. The attorney general of Arizona, Grant Woods, brought this matter to my attention several months ago, and we brought it to the majority leader, and we introduced legislation to cut the prisoner litigation. It has been in effect now in the State of Arizona pursuant to State law for about a year, and the prisoner litigation there has been cut in half as a result of the requirements that we place on the filing of lawsuits, by the inmates in the Arizona State system. If you can extrapolate from the same statistics, it clearly ought to result in the reduction of delays and expenses in our Federal court system if we are able to impose the same requirements on our Federal prisoners when they attempt to litigate. All we are doing is asking they pay the same kind of filing fees and costs that a citizen who has not committed any violation of law has to pay, and that their suits be subject to the same kind of requirements in terms of meeting the tests of a legitimate lawsuit rather than just being a frivolous lawsuit. I think if we can extrapolate the figure to all 50 States, from the experience we had in the State of Arizona where the litigation has been cut in half, we ought to be able to save about $81.3 million. That is a significant chunk of change that would save the United States taxpayers in addition to the benefit of unclogging the courts. Mr. President, there is one other thing that this will do. I think it begins to send a message that prison is not necessarily a nice place. You do not have extra privileges when you go to prison. You certainly ought not to be treated any better than the average citizen. Another part of this bill is to put impediments on ``special masters,'' and I think by doing that we also make it clear we regain control of the Federal court system, and we do not just allow the Federal judges to dictate to the States how their prison systems will be run. I am pleased the legislation will be adopted and pleased to express my views. I ask unanimous consent to have frivolous lawsuit lists printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I shall be brief. I assume that this amendment will be adopted on a voice vote, but I do think it is important to just reiterate a couple of points. I am very pleased to join Senator Grassley, the chairman of the courts subcommittee, in introducing the amendment. What it does is to require that all circuit court judicial conference meetings must be held within the circuit and that they keep the cost of each of those conferences not to exceed $100,000. [[Page S 14651]] Additionally, the amendment would remove the requirement that a judicial conference be held every 2 years. A circuit may hold a conference but is not required to hold a conference under our amendment. And the reason is, as was pointed out by Senator Grassley, at a time when judicial resources are precious, money should not be used to fund trips to such faraway places as Maui, Santa Barbara and Sun Valley. The conferences should be held in areas that are easily accessible and within the geographic bounds of the district. According to a report released last week by the General Accounting Office, the total cost for the circuit judicial conference meetings in 1993 was more than $1 million, and in 1994 it was once again almost $1 million. In both 1993 and 1994, the ninth circuit, which encompasses my State of Arizona, ran up the largest tab, costing the taxpayers more than a quarter of a million dollars each year according to this GAO report. The estimated cost for this year's ninth circuit conference in Hawaii is more than a half million dollars, according to the Legal Times. Unfortunately, Mr. President, this comes at a time when we have to start counting our pennies here at the Federal Government level, and I am sure that the public is fed up with such waste. In fact, about a week ago, I received a letter from one of my constituents about the subject. He wrote about what he called, and I am quoting now, ``The extravagant conference charges incurred by United States taxpayers to send about 350 Federal judges to Maui, Hawaii this year.'' He continued, and I am quoting, ``I am outraged by such extravagance. Is it no wonder that the every-day citizens of this Nation are cynical, disappointed and feel totally helpless as this kind of abuse rages in all levels of Government?'' Mr. President, I think he is right. These conferences are an abuse of taxpayers' funds and of the public trust. The ninth circuit usually holds its conferences at a resort in either San Diego, Santa Barbara, Maui or Sun Valley, ID. They are all beautiful places, but the public should not be paying about $1 million each year to fund conferences in such places. According to an article in the Legal Times, many judges believe that reform is needed. As one ninth circuit judge, Charles Wiggins, noted: ``It's an excessive expenditure of public funds.'' Another judge--Judge Rubin of Cincinnati--commented: ``There are a lot of other things I'd rather see the taxpayers' money spent on.'' ``[The 1993] conference schedule, like those in the past, included such diversions as tennis, golf tournaments, a spouse sightseeing and winery tour and cooking and flower arranging classes,'' according to an article in the Recorder, a San Francisco-based newspaper affiliated with the Legal Times. What is particularly galling about the excessive amount spent on these conferences is that the spending comes at a time when the judiciary is so strapped for funds. For example, the ninth circuit's 1993 conference came just 8 months after the U.S. Judicial Conference, the governing body of the Federal courts, imposed a hiring freeze and postponed some pay increases for Federal court employees in the ninth circuit and around the country. At the same time, the judicial conference's executive committee trimmed court operating expenses as well as probation and pretrial services funding, citing a $100 million operating shortfall. Additionally, in June 1993, citing a lack of funds to pay jurors, Federal trial courts around the country briefly suspended some civil jury trials. In July, Congress had to pass a $100 million bailout for the courts. In addition to running up large bills by traveling to out-of-the-way places such as Maui and Sun Valley that are within the geographical boundaries of the circuit, many conferences are held outside of the circuit. For example, in 1993, the sixth circuit, which includes Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky, held its conference at the seaside resort of Hilton Head in South Carolina. As the chief judge of the sixth circuit said at the time, ``It's not a matter of choice. It's a requirement of the Congress to hold the meeting. They just don't say where.'' Well, not anymore, Mr. President. With this amendment, Congress will say where. It is simply limited to some place within the circuit, and certainly in my own case in the ninth circuit there are plenty of nice places such as the seat of the circuit, San Francisco, to hold these conferences. So this will certainly be no imposition on judges. I support what Senator Grassley has said, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help to put an end to this wasteful spending.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for yielding. I would like to address this for 2 or 3 minutes. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. But, as is the Presiding Officer, I am a freshman and, therefore, was not present when the Judiciary Committee held its meetings on this matter in September 1994. There are five new members of the Judiciary Committee. So roughly one- third of the committee is new and did not have an opportunity to review the application, to question the witness, and to resolve matters that may have been raised at that time. I understand that most of the questions have actually been raised since then. But I suggest that probably raises the question of perhaps having an additional hearing to deal with these questions. I have the greatest respect for Senators Breaux and Johnston, and I certainly admire their support for this nominee. I know that Senator Hatch has thought long and hard about this as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, trying to abide by his commitment to the administration to move these nominees along with a minimum of difficulty. But, given the fact that about one-third of the members of the Judiciary Committee have not had an opportunity to question Judge Dennis, and, second, that the transcript from the hearing where that opportunity was afforded is very meager to say the least, it seems to me that perhaps the motion to recommit would be the best course of action to consider at least these new allegations. I have a copy of the transcript of the proceedings that were held on September 14, 1994. Only one member of the committee was present, the Senator from Alabama. He asked five rather perfunctory questions. I do not mean that to demean his questioning. They are the same questions that I have asked nominees after I have satisfied myself that they possessed the requisite qualifications for the position. The questions were simply to the point of would he follow precedent, would he abide by the Supreme Court law, and so on. Of course, the judge answered yes. So those five minimal questions really do not establish much of a record upon which to make a decision. Since then we have these allegations--again most recently in the newspaper--that, frankly, pose some very serious questions about whether the judge should have recused himself in an extremely important matter in his own State. I first became aware of this nomination because of the question in my mind about whether or not the proper relationship of judges in Mississippi and Louisiana was being satisfied as a result of the nominee from Louisiana as opposed to a nominee from Mississippi. I am very concerned that the proper relationship always exist within the circuits. We are in the circuit of California, and, obviously, California is a very big part of the ninth circuit. We always want to make sure that we have the proper relationship there, and, if there is an Arizona position available, that position be filled from within Arizona. I understand that issue has essentially been worked out based upon commitments that would be made about future nominees, and I may be wrong in this. But I also understand that Judge Abner Mikva was the person from the White House who wrote the letter expressing the commitment. Judge Mikva, of course, is no longer there, which illustrates the fact that commitments are important between people but sometimes circumstances change and it is not always possible to fulfill those commitments. So I thought that was resolved. I am not sure that it is. I would like to satisfy myself on that as well. But, Mr. President, in view of the fact that these allegations are new, they were not before the committee at the time, and, therefore, certainly the Judiciary Committee cannot be blamed, but given the fact that a third of the committee has not participated in hearings on this judge, it seems to me that we would all be better served by having another hearing allowing the judge to come before us so we may question him about these matters. And I would feel much better about the decision that I would have to make later on as a member of the Judiciary Committee having that knowledge before me. Then, when colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee ask me what I think as a result of the fact that I participated in the nomination process, I would be in a better position to with some confidence say to them I reviewed it, we had him before us, I am convinced he will be just fine, or perhaps I still have some questions about it. But I will not know that unless we have this kind of an opportunity. So I support the motion that has been made to recommit by the Senator from Mississippi reluctantly because it is more work for our chairman and our committee. But I think that is probably the proper thing to do with such an important nomination as a member of the fifth circuit court of appeals. Again, I appreciate the Senator yielding the time.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor an amendment to H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill. I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment which will prohibit the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] from enforcing a complaint of discrimination on the basis of a housing provider's occupancy standard, enforcement of which goes well beyond the standards described in the March 20, 1991 memorandum of the general counsel of HUD to all Regional Counsel. Mr. President, an occupancy standard is one which specifies the number of people who may live in a residential rental unit. An internal 1991 HUD memorandum, issued by former HUD General Counsel Keating to all regional counsel, clearly established a straightforward occupancy standard of ``two persons per bedroom'' as generally reasonable. The two-per-bedroom occupancy standard has been deemed reasonable within the enforcement of fair housing discrimination laws under the Fair Housing Act. That is until Henry Cisneros became Secretary of HUD. Secretary Cisneros and his Deputy Roberta Achtenberg have disagreed with the traditional occupancy standard, arguing that it discriminates against larger families. In July of this year HUD General Counsel Diaz issued a memorandum which, in effect, supplants the two-per-bedroom standard, and may force housing owners to accept six, seven, eight, or even nine people into a two-bedroom apartment. Mr. Diaz's standard is without merit. Mr. Diaz has used the BOCA-- Building Officials and Code Administrators--Property Maintenance Code as a foundation for his occupancy standard. The BOCA code is a health and safety code specifically drafted by engineers and architects to provide guidance to municipalities on the maximum number of individuals who may safely occupy any building. It was never intended to alter the minimum number of family members HUD could require owners to accept under fair housing law. The code was adopted without any consultation, public hearings, or analysis of its impact of the Nation's rental housing industries. That is wrong. It was not the intent of Congress to allow HUD to establish a national occupancy standard. Secretary Cisneros, through HUD's general counsel, has circumvented the Federal Government's rule making process by imposing this standard through an advisory without public hearings. This amendment blocks HUD's attempt to set a national occupancy standard through an advisory. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. amendment no. 2804 (Purpose: To make an amendment relating to eligible activities under section 105 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and for other purposes) At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following new section:

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, special masters, who are supposed to assist judges as factfinders in complex litigation, have all too often been improperly used in prison condition cases. In Arizona, special masters have micromanaged the department of corrections, and have performed all manner of services in behalf of convicted felons, from maintaining lavish law libraries to distributing up to 750 tons of Christmas packages each year. Special masters appointed to oversee prison litigation have cost Arizona taxpayers more than $320,000 since 1992. One special master was even allowed to hire a chauffeur, at taxpayers' expense, because he said he had a bad back. The Prison Litigation Reform Act, introduced as an amendment to the Commerce/Justice/State appropriations bill, requires the Federal judiciary, not the States, to foot the bill for special masters in prison litigation cases. Last July the Arizona legislature and Governor Symington cut off funds to special masters. It's time we take the Arizona model to the rest of the States. The amendment also addresses prison litigation reform. Many people think of prison inmates as spending their free time in the weight room or the television lounge. But the most crowded place in today's prisons may be the law library. Federal prison lawsuits have risen from 2,000 in 1970 to 39,000 in 1994. In the words of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, suing has because, recreational activity for long-term residents of our prisons. Today's system seems to encourage prisoners to file with impunity. After all, it's free. And a courtroom is certainly a more hospitable place to spend an afternoon than a prison cell. Prisoners file free lawsuits in response to almost any perceived slight or inconvenience-- being served chunky instead of creamy peanut butter, for instance, or being denied the use of a Gameboy video game--a case which prompted a lawsuit in my home State of Arizona. These prisoners are victimizing society twice--first when they commit the crime that put them in prison, and second when they waste our hard- earned tax dollars while cases based on serious grievances languish on the court calendar. In Arizona, Attorney General Grant Woods, who is here with us today, used to spend well over $1 million a year processing and defending against frivolous inmate lawsuits. But Grant successfully championed a reform bill, which went into effect last year, and the number of prison lawsuits was cut in half. Arizona prisoners still have the right to seek legal redress for meritorious claims, but the time and money once spent defending frivolous suits is now used to settle legitimate claims in a timely manner. But the States alone cannot solve this problem. The vast majority of frivolous suits are brought in Federal courts under Federal laws--which is why I introduced the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 last may with Senators Dole and Hatch. We are incorporating that legislation into the Commerce/Justice/State amendment. Federal prisoners are churning out lawsuits with no regard to this cost to the taxpayers or their legal merit. We can no longer ignore this abuse of our court system and taxpayers' funds. With the support of attorneys general around the country, I am confident that we will see real reform on this issue.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the Senator from Missouri yielding time. I appreciate what both he and the Senator from Iowa have done in pointing out some of the problems with this new program that is called AmeriCorps. My position is that at this time of severe budgetary crisis in this country, at a time when we are trying to balance the Federal budget, it is not the time to be starting new Federal programs with substantial expenses which, frankly, are not cost beneficial in terms of the degree of support that it provides to the American people. As a brand new program, AmeriCorps costs American taxpayers $367 million in 1994, and the GAO estimates that AmeriCorps costs nearly $27,000 for each volunteer. It is not an effective jobs or education program, and I submit, Mr. President, that it is not going to increase voluntarism in this country or in my home State of Arizona. For example, the Arizona AmeriCorps Program, called the Border Volunteer Corps, was one of the largest programs. It received $2.6 million in the 1994 and 1995 service year. But it will not be federally funded this year through the Corporation for National Service. The reason is because the Arizona-Mexico Commission, the Arizona sponsor, pulled out because of alleged mismanagement of this program. It seems to me that groups such as the Salvation Army, groups in Arizona like Arizona Clean and Beautiful, Crime Victim Foundation, St. Mary's and Andre House food bank, and others that provide volunteer service in the State commit millions of hours to voluntarism every year. We know today, Americans 18 and up volunteer 19.5 billion hours of their time, which is a 50-percent increase in the number of hours since 1981. Turning voluntarism into a wide-scale public jobs project, it seems to me, will undermine public philanthropy. We are doing well in volunteering in this country, not paying people to be volunteers. Moreover, as other speakers have pointed out, AmeriCorps is not based on need. Certainly, today in our effort to prioritize where Federal dollars are going, Federal higher education dollars, if that is what these are targeted to be, should be targeted toward those who are most in need of assistance. AmeriCorps does not promote voluntarism because it is not a volunteer program. Students are paid $7,400 for work and given $4,750 toward education costs for 2 years. In addition, recipients are guaranteed health and child care benefits. [[Page S 14264]] For the average $20,000 to $30,000 cost per year per student in AmeriCorps, eight needy students could receive Pell grants at $2,400 each. Eight needy students--and that is the definition of the qualification for Pell grants--could be served with this same amount of money, in other words, that we pay for one AmeriCorps volunteer. A $20,000 stipend is worth more than the individual income of nearly 40 million working Americans. That is what we are paying these AmeriCorps so-called volunteers. Examples of AmeriCorps spending: The National Civilian Community Corps, funded through AmeriCorps, provides 1,000 AmeriCorps volunteers with meals, tuition stipend, health care, child care, and housing at four closed military bases in Maryland, South Carolina, Colorado, and California. So this volunteer program will cost $26 million for these 1,000 participants. Of course, the taxpayers fit the bill for AmeriCorps and not just for the good work that they do, but also for everything else associated with their work, including their training and a lot of interesting kinds of seminars. According to John Walters of the New Citizenship Project, AmeriCorps volunteers spend one-fifth of their time in training, education and other nondirect service activities. So the taxpayers pay for nonneedy students to participate in self-esteem and other government classes and seminars. It is also, I think, a problem here because, Mr. President, at the time we are trying to reduce the Federal bureaucracy, AmeriCorps volunteers are becoming part of a Federal bureaucracy. Over 2,800, in other words, about 20 percent, of the 20,000 AmeriCorps volunteers are assigned to Federal agencies, including Agriculture, Interior, National Endowment for the Arts, and others. The federally funded Legal Services Corporation, for example, has been awarded funding for 44 AmeriCorps volunteers, costing taxpayers $959,000. I think the bottom line is that for fiscal reasons, we have to limit AmeriCorps spending, and that is why I support what the Senator from Missouri is trying to do today. It simply costs the American taxpayer too much for the benefits that it provides, and I suggest that it should be eliminated. We ought to examine the intent and the costs of the program. For example, we should get answers to why the AmeriCorps program costs $42,000 per person per student in Alaska. More than 16 students in that State could participate in the Pell grant program for the same amount of money that is used to sponsor one AmeriCorps volunteer. Or why $1.7 million of the AmeriCorps budget has been spent on an AmeriCorps advertisement campaign. This year alone, the Government will pay more than $3 billion in interest on our national debt. That is about $1,100 for every man, woman and child in the country, enough to pay a year's tuition for a young woman or young man, for example, to attend Arizona State University. Reducing funding for AmeriCorps is one small but very important way that we can begin to prioritize how Washington spends the taxpayers' money. That is why, Mr. President, as I said, I support what the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Iowa have been saying today. It is time to cut the AmeriCorps program down to size. I appreciate the Senator from Missouri yielding me this time. I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to make two modifications [[Page S 13743]] to the pension-related provisions of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges facing Americans today is to save and invest for retirement. It is a challenge that is made difficult by all of the important matters that compete for a share of the American family's limited income day in and day out. Parents routinely ask themselves, for example, if they can afford to make a contribution to an individual retirement account when they still need to save for their child's college education. Sometimes, the choices people face are even more stark: Whether to set aside money for retirement, repair the family car so a mother or father can get to work, or just put food on the table or clothes on the kids' backs. Employers, too, must make similar choices. To attract and retain qualified employees, they want to be able to offer good pension benefits. But, they have to decide whether they can put more money into a pension plan for their employees when the business needs new equipment just to stay competitive. It's easy to relegate retirement to second place behind any of these other pressing needs--especially when retirement is 5, 10, 20, or 30 years away. But, adequate planning for retirement is no less important or urgent. When the time comes, we will all need to draw upon the resources we have been able to set aside during our working years. Because there are so many competing demands placed on people's incomes--because it is so difficult to save for retirement even under the best of circumstances--the Federal Government should be sure to do what it can to encourage people to save and invest for their retirement years. One thing Congress could do in that regard is provide new incentives to save. The new chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Bill Roth, has a plan to enhance and overhaul the Individual Retirement Account [IRA]. I am pleased to have cosponsored that proposal, S. 12, with him. Another thing we could do is simplify current law to make it easier for people and their employers to participate in retirement plans. Senator Pryor has an excellent proposal, S. 1006, the Pension Simplification Act, that I hope the Finance Committee will also consider when it acts on reconciliation in the near future. The bill that I am introducing today takes two additional steps in the direction of pension simplification, correcting two problems that were created by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, last year's GATT bill. The first change in my bill relates to the interest rate used to calculate lump sum distributions from defined benefit pension plans. The GATT bill required use of the interest rate on 30-year Treasury securities, a rate that is proving too volatile for many retirement plans, particularly small plans. As Bruce Tempkin, an actuary and small business pension specialist at Louis Kravitz & Associates, put it recently, ``it is similar to taking out a varible-rate mortgage with no cap.'' You could find yourself getting ready to retire and expecting a lump sum distribution of a given amount, but being told that you will actually get a third less because the interest rate just changed. My bill would give plans a one-time option to choose a fixed interest rate between 5 and 8 percent instead of the floating 30-year Treasury rate. That will make it easier for employers to plan for the required contributions, and for employers and employees alike to understand what their lump sum benefits will ultimately be. The second change included in my bill would correct an anomaly that was created under section 415(b)(2)(E) of the code. As a result of the change made in last year's GATT bill, lump-sum distributions are calculated differently from--and thereby bear no relationship to--the actuarial equivalent of a monthly life annuity for early retirees. It is a result that, from all indications was unintended. My bill includes a technical correction to ensure that the two options--the monthly life annuity and the lump sum distribution--are indeed actuarially equivalent for early retirees. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this important initiative. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to make two modifications [[Page S 13743]] to the pension-related provisions of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges facing Americans today is to save and invest for retirement. It is a challenge that is made difficult by all of the important matters that compete for a share of the American family's limited income day in and day out. Parents routinely ask themselves, for example, if they can afford to make a contribution to an individual retirement account when they still need to save for their child's college education. Sometimes, the choices people face are even more stark: Whether to set aside money for retirement, repair the family car so a mother or father can get to work, or just put food on the table or clothes on the kids' backs. Employers, too, must make similar choices. To attract and retain qualified employees, they want to be able to offer good pension benefits. But, they have to decide whether they can put more money into a pension plan for their employees when the business needs new equipment just to stay competitive. It's easy to relegate retirement to second place behind any of these other pressing needs--especially when retirement is 5, 10, 20, or 30 years away. But, adequate planning for retirement is no less important or urgent. When the time comes, we will all need to draw upon the resources we have been able to set aside during our working years. Because there are so many competing demands placed on people's incomes--because it is so difficult to save for retirement even under the best of circumstances--the Federal Government should be sure to do what it can to encourage people to save and invest for their retirement years. One thing Congress could do in that regard is provide new incentives to save. The new chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Bill Roth, has a plan to enhance and overhaul the Individual Retirement Account [IRA]. I am pleased to have cosponsored that proposal, S. 12, with him. Another thing we could do is simplify current law to make it easier for people and their employers to participate in retirement plans. Senator Pryor has an excellent proposal, S. 1006, the Pension Simplification Act, that I hope the Finance Committee will also consider when it acts on reconciliation in the near future. The bill that I am introducing today takes two additional steps in the direction of pension simplification, correcting two problems that were created by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, last year's GATT bill. The first change in my bill relates to the interest rate used to calculate lump sum distributions from defined benefit pension plans. The GATT bill required use of the interest rate on 30-year Treasury securities, a rate that is proving too volatile for many retirement plans, particularly small plans. As Bruce Tempkin, an actuary and small business pension specialist at Louis Kravitz & Associates, put it recently, ``it is similar to taking out a varible-rate mortgage with no cap.'' You could find yourself getting ready to retire and expecting a lump sum distribution of a given amount, but being told that you will actually get a third less because the interest rate just changed. My bill would give plans a one-time option to choose a fixed interest rate between 5 and 8 percent instead of the floating 30-year Treasury rate. That will make it easier for employers to plan for the required contributions, and for employers and employees alike to understand what their lump sum benefits will ultimately be. The second change included in my bill would correct an anomaly that was created under section 415(b)(2)(E) of the code. As a result of the change made in last year's GATT bill, lump-sum distributions are calculated differently from--and thereby bear no relationship to--the actuarial equivalent of a monthly life annuity for early retirees. It is a result that, from all indications was unintended. My bill includes a technical correction to ensure that the two options--the monthly life annuity and the lump sum distribution--are indeed actuarially equivalent for early retirees. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this important initiative. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from California. I appreciate what she is trying to accomplish. But under her formula, as I calculate it, California would receive fully 20 percent of the supplemental amount already appropriated in the bill. Under the Hutchison formula, not a single State would lose any block grant funding but there is an adjustment for those particularly high growth States and States that are well below the national average on the receipt of Federal funds for welfare spending. Everybody has a different formula which helps them. Senator Feinstein is only trying to help her constituents. But if we get bogged down in a welfare formula fight, there is a good possibility that welfare reform could be derailed in the Senate. Realizing that, a group of Senators early on, under the leadership of Senator Hutchison, came up with a formula that, in a small way, begins to recognize the need to distribute welfare funds in a more equitable manner. The point is this: States that are currently well below the national average in receipt of Federal funds and State welfare spending and States that will experience higher than average growth in population should receive a greater share of the ``growth'' formula. The Hutchison formula accomplishes this by giving States that meet these criteria a 2.5-percent increase per year in block grant funding starting in fiscal year 1997. Under this formula, no State loses any block grant funding and 17 States with particular needs get an increase. So, in States like Mississippi, where AFDC payments are the lowest in the Nation, a small stride will be made toward allocating funding in a way that treats poor children more equitably. And, in States like Arizona, where population growth is expected to be well above the national average over the next 5 years, a small movement toward equity in funding distribution is also achieved. The Feinstein amendment, on the other hand, is based solely on increases in incidences of poverty. That will upset the balance that was achieved earlier on the funding formula. It is based solely on increases in poverty--which can be a built-in incentive for States to keep people in poverty in order to receive increases in Federal funding. It will reward States like California and New York, which already take a huge chunk of the Federal pot with even additional Federal dollars. Under the Feinstein amendment, 20 percent of the supplemental amount already appropriated in the bill will go to California. This is not fair. Under the Feinstein amendment, California's spending per person in poverty will remain well above the national average while Arizona will continue to hover around the national average. And, under Feinstein, other States like Mississippi and Texas, will not even reach the national average in spending by the year 2000. Under the Feinstein amendment, States that are poor and growing will continue to be poor and growing without the necessary 10.4 percent increase that the Hutchison formula would provide. California, which already receives three times more in Federal funding per poor child-- $1,016 per child--than a child in Arizona--$361 per child--will receive a much larger increase than Arizona. Since there will no longer be a Federal/State match required in welfare spending under the Dole welfare bill, there must be a movement toward equity in Federal welfare funding to the States. We cannot expend all of our resources in just a few States. [[Page S 13204]] The Hutchison formula is a very fair formula and I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Under the previous order, the hour of 9:30 having arrived, the Senate will now vote on the Brown amendment No. 2465. The yeas and nays have been ordered. [[Page S 12876]] The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, I rise to offer an amendment to the Defense authorization bill concerning the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, commonly known as Nunn-Lugar. The purpose of this amendment is to require both the DOD and the Russians to get serious about chemical weapons destruction activities and to focus their efforts in a productive manner. Of the $371 million requested for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program with Russia and other former States of the Soviet Union, $104 million was requested for chemical weapons destruction. Reducing the chemical weapons stockpiles of both the United States and Russia is an important goal. Chemical weapons and nerve agents are among the cheapest and most effective manner to kill people. The number of chemical-weapons nations has tripled from 8 in 1969 to as many as 26 today. Moreover, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has counted 15 separate cases of recent chemical conflict in the Third World. The problem is that current CTR Program to reduce chemical weapons is ill defined and lacks focus. The first purpose of my amendment is to withhold $54 million for a chemical weapons destruction facility until the completion of the joint feasibility study. This approach is consistent with the GAO report from June 1995 ``Weapons of Mass Destruction, Reducing the Threat From the Former Soviet Union: An Update.'' In the report, the GAO noted, . . . the United States have yet to agree on the applicability of a technology to be used in chemical weapons destruction facility and may not do so until midway through fiscal year 1996. This uncertainty raises questions as to the program's need for the $104 million it is requesting in fiscal year 1996, in part, to begin designing and constructing the facility. Agreeing on a destruction technology is important because Russia is currently proposing using a ``neutralization'' technology which would blend the chemical toxin with other chemicals in an attempt to neutralize the toxin. This is an unproven technology and will create two to three times the amount of chemical waste already in the inventory. The United States preferred technology is incineration, although that is not without its problems. My amendment requires that the United States and Russia complete a joint laboratory study before the United States provides the balance of the $104 million for a controversial, unproven approach. A second aspect of my amendment is the requirement that Russia agree, with United States assistance, to prepare a comprehensive plan to cope with the Russian chemical weapons destruction program. According to the GAO, the administration originally proposed this approach to the Russians. The current plan is to develop a proposal for each individual which will be involved in chemical weapons destruction--there are seven sites in Russia. With a declared stockpile of 40,000 metric tonnes, the only way to manage the chemical weapons issue is to view the totality of the problem. The United States cannot be certain whether the proposals deal with the whole problem, unless a comprehensive, detailed plan is prepared. Further, the United States cannot be certain of its total financial obligation without a comprehensive plan. The third aspect of my amendment is to require the President to certify that the Russians are committed to resolving outstanding issues under the 1989 Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding and the 1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement. The Wyoming MOU was intended to build confidence between the United States and Russia in the chemical weapons area and thus facilitate completion of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. This would be done by exchanging detailed and complete data about their respective chemical weapons programs and by testing inspection procedures. Under the MOU, during the first phase, the countries are to exchange general data on their chemical weapons and make reciprocal visit to storage, production, and destruction facilities. In the second phase, the counties are to exchange detailed data on their chemical weapon stocks and verify this information through reciprocal on-site inspections. During this phase, each country is to provide the other with general plans for dismantling chemical weapons production facilities. The first phase of the Wyoming MOU was completed in early 1991. The second phase of the MOU was delayed because of disputes between the two countries. In a report issued to Congress in January 1995 entitled ``U.S. Assistance and Related Programs for the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union,'' the administration was more forthcoming. The report says: . . . Phase I of the [Wyoming] MOU was completed in February 1991. Documents allowing for the second and final phase of the MOU were agreed upon at the January 1994 Moscow Summit. Russian implementation of Phase II has yielded problematic results. . . . The U.S. believe that several key question and concerns have not yet been resolved in Russia's data declaration. . . . The U.S. continues to have significant concerns about Russia implementation of the Wyoming MOU. . . . Russia still must take concrete steps to fulfill its commitment and resolve existing problems. Although not yet ratified, the Bilateral Destruction Agreement requires each party to undertake not to produce chemical weapons and to reduce their chemical weapons stockpile to 5,000 agent tonnes. The principle issue holding up completion of the agreement concerns the conversion of former chemical weapons production facilities. Russia missed the December 1992 original target date for starting its destruction program. Currently, it has no comprehensive plan defining when and how the weapons will be destroyed. An unclassified ACDA report on arms control compliances merely notes that ``questions remain on certain aspects of the Russian date declaration and inspections.'' The Wyoming MOU and the Bilateral Destruct Agreement were intended to support and facilitate the Chemical Weapons Convention which would restrict members from developing, producing, acquiring stockpiling, retaining transferring or using chemical weapons, and require the destruction of those weapons within 15 years. Although it is in our interest to have Russia agree to a verifiable Chemical Weapons Convention, how can the United States have any confidence in the integrity of the CWC, if Russia has failed to implement these two agreements? For these reasons, Mr. President, it is my intent that the Senate send a signal to Russia and the DOD to get serious about putting this important chemical weapons destruction program in place. cooperative threat reduction program

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the bipartisan compromise on ballistic missile defenses [BMD]. Although two key amendments by opponents of BMD were voted down by the Senate on August 3 and 4, the bipartisan amendment is necessary in order to advance the Department of Defense authorization bill and to bring it to a conference with the House. I supported the original version of the bill submitted by the Armed Services Committee. The original version set a proper course for deployment of theater and strategic ballistic missile defenses on a time-line commensurate with the potential threat. Additionally, the original language repudiated the ABM Treaty and its philosophical basis, mutual assured destruction, by declaring that it is the policy of the United States that the two are ``not a suitable basis for stability in a multipolar world.'' Though I am not at all entirely pleased with the compromise language, the present version does preserve the fundamental principles of the original bill: immediate deployment of theater missile defenses; the possibility of multiple site national missile defense deployments; layered defenses; and review of the ABM Treaty. The new language differs from the original bill in three sections. I hope that these differences, which are as follows, are addressed by the conferees. First, the compromise calls for the United States to embark on a program to develop for deployment a national missile defense system. This characterizes the research we have undertaken for the last 12 years and changes nothing with respect to our Nation's commitment to deploy defenses. The original bill clearly called for deployment of a national missile defense system and is a more proactive statement of congressional intent to deploy a national missile defense system rather than to conduct research forever. The threat facing the United States, its allies and troops abroad by the proliferation of ballistic missiles mandates that we move forward toward deploying ballistic missile defenses. In a March 1995 report, ``The Weapons Proliferation Threat,'' the Central Intelligence Agency observed that at least 20 countries--nearly half of them in the Middle East and Asia--already have or may be developing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems. Five countries-- North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Syria--pose the greatest threat because of the aggressive nature of their weapons of mass destruction program. All already have or are developing ballistic missile that could threaten U.S. interests. Second, in addressing the requirements of a layered defense system, the compromise language merely calls for a system that can be augmented over time as the threat changes. The original bill required a system that will be augmented over time as the threat changes to provide a layered defense. The key issue here is whether the DOD plans now for a layered defense system, one potentially with space-based assets, or does DOD merely hold out the option for the possibility of evolving to a layered defense? I believe the commitment for layered defenses is important. Space- based interceptors provide worldwide, instantaneous protection against missiles launched from anywhere in the world, and are both cheaper and more effective than their ground-based counterparts. Missiles launched--either by accident or in anger--against the United States or our allies and friends, could be destroyed in the early stages of their flight, before they release their warheads if, but only if, we have space-based interceptors. This is especially important with multiple warhead missiles or missiles with chemical or biological warheads. With the latter, the early intercept results in more harm to the attacking nation as chemical or biological agents would be dispersed over its territory. Another advantage of space assets is that they are always on station. Third, both the compromise and the original bill have language concerning the demarcation line between strategic [[Page S 12658]] and theater ballistic missile defenses. This section was necessary because the current position of the Clinton administration constrains key theater missile defense systems. The effect of what the Clinton administration proposed was to degrade the only advanced theater systems in research and development in the United States. The bill and compromise both require the administration to submit for approval by the Senate any agreement it reached with the Russians on limiting theater missile defenses. In addition, it prohibits the expenditure of funds for 1 year only to implement any agreement that would limit the capability of our theater missile defense systems. It is my hope that in conference, the restriction will be made permanent. The compromise version, however, does not make clear that it is the intent of the Senate, that any unilateral limitation by the United States should also be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The administration has received five letters from Members of the Senate and has participated in countless meetings over the past 8 months on this subject. That the Senate takes this matter seriously and would not look favorably on attempts to circumvent the clear intent of the Senate, should be abundantly clear. The United States must proceed immediately with the development and deployment of theater ballistic missile defenses, and, at the earliest practical time, should deploy national missile defenses. During the last 4 weeks, while Congress has been on recess, information has surfaced concerning Iraq's military buildup of weapons of mass destruction. The Washington Post reported that Iraq turned over 147 boxes and two large cargo containers containing information which describes a broader and more advanced effort by the country to produce nuclear arms, germ weapons and ballistic missiles than previously known. Among the new disclosures is an Iraqi admission that it had germ or toxin- filled shells, aircraft bombs and ballistic missile warheads ready for possible use during the Persian Gulf war. Iraq also admitted to having begun a crash program in August 1990-- the month it invaded Kuwait--aimed at producing a single nuclear weapon within 1 year. And, finally, the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq plans to investigate Iraq's admission that it was capable of indigenously producing engines for Scud missiles and that it has made more progress in developing a longer range missile than it had previously stated. The important lesson is that we almost always know less about a country's program to develop weapons of mass destruction that we think we do. We cannot afford to be sanguine about how long it will take one country or another to develop a ballistic missile that can threaten the United States. The evidence suggests that the threat is closer than we think. It is time to seriously address this issue. In closing, Mr. President, I want to stress that my preference is to stick with the original bill language, and I will work with the conferees to reinstate some of the critical sections of that bill. However, in an effort to advance the DOD bill to conference, I am reluctantly supporting the compromise amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to offer my thoughts on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the formal surrender of the Empire of Japan and the end of World War II. Mr. President, September 2, 1995, marked the day, 50 years ago, that the Empire of Japan signed documents of surrender aboard the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay, formally ending World War II. It is fitting that America commemorated the anniversary of this most pivotal event in human history--the victory of the free world over three irredeemable regimes in which human evil was institutionalized and directed toward world conquest: Germany's naziism, Italy's fascism, and Japan's militaristic imperialism. In the 2,194 days of World War II, more than 50 million human beings lost their lives. This horrific total includes nearly 300,000 Americans killed in combat, six million Jews murdered in Europe, and one million Chinese slain in the Japanese rape of Nanking. Fifty years ago, a vicious war had finally ended, but ancient cities lay in ruins. Mighty armies had been vanquished. Proud cultures had been decimated. But today, one overriding truth has gradually become clear: Though much was lost, far more has since been gained. In the European theater, World War II saw the indescribable bravery of American teenagers at Normandy and Pointe du Hoc, and the unfathomable butchery of the Third Reich. In the Pacific, the hallowed places of valor, suffering, and self-sacrifice continue to echo down the halls of American history: Bataan, Corregidor, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa. The vast scope of World War II encompassed the final cavalry charge and the first wartime use of the atomic bomb. It is fitting and proper that, 50 years after the end of this conflict, all Americans quietly reflect upon the meaning of the war, and, in particular, upon the awesome destructive power unleashed by these bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki from a U.S. Air Force B-29, killing 200,000. This act of American servicemen, done in our name, does not make them--or us-- warmongers. On the contrary, the soldier, sailor, and aviator above all yearn for peace--even while obeying all moral and reasonable orders of civilian leaders--because he or she endures the greatest fear and anguish from war. Mr. President, our ongoing national debate over the propriety of America's use of these weapons reflects an active national moral conscience. It is an indication that Americans continue to care about what was done by their Government in their name. It signals our appreciation that national choices have moral consequences for which all Americans are responsible. In the case [[Page S 12747]] of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, these consequences continue to reverberate through American and world history. Fifty years after the fact, it is difficult to recapture the national mood and historical context of August 1945. The temptation of latter- day historians is to narrowly focus on only these two events--as destructive and horrible as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were--apart from the historical context in which they occurred. This is sometimes done with the intent to advance a particular agenda or political point of view. This tendency, known as historical revisionism, was recently seen in the controversy over the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian, and in the debate over changing ``V-J Day'' to ``Victory in the War of the Pacific,'' to avoid offending Japanese sensitivities. Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be accurately assessed in the abstract. These events are directly linked to Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Bataan, and, of course, Pearl Harbor, where the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial bears silent witness to the memory of 1,177 American sailors who died on the morning of December 7, 1941. The average age of the 1,102 who, to this day, remain entombed in the Arizona's watery grave, is 18. These teenaged sailors were heroes before they were men. Some armchair historians, safely ensconced in ivory towers, issue moral condemnations of the very acts of war that saved American lives and, in large measure, preserved their freedom to issue those condemnations. They enjoy the benefits of freedom--particularly, the freedom to dissent--with little appreciation of its costs. They don't adequately appreciate that freedom is not free, but has been purchased with the blood of young Americans whose names they will never know. In re-writing the events that preserved their freedom, and the freedom of much of the world, they engage in more than dubious scholarship; they dishonor the memory of those of whom General MacArthur said, ``they fought and died * * * and left the air singed with their honor.'' A credible historian must endeavor to learn the lessons of history. To learn these lessons, he or she must know the facts on which the lessons are based. Mr. President, to fairly evaluate Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the historian must strive to see the world as Truman saw it, and to fully embrace the objective facts that he confronted. In this evaluation, all are entitled to their own opinions; none are entitled to their own facts. And facts can be stubborn things. What were the facts on which Truman based his fateful decision to use the atomic bomb? Truman, as Commander in Chief, was responsible, not only for determining and prosecuting military strategy, but also for the lives of his troops. As a World War I combat veteran, he knew well the brutality of war, and regarded his duty to minimize American casualties to be a sacred moral obligation. One can only imagine the firestorm of criticism if, in 1947, it was revealed that America had a weapon--no matter how destructive or horrible--that just might have saved American lives had it been used. George Elsey, a young naval intelligence officer in constant contact with Truman prior to and at the time the decision was made, believes that ``the answer is impeachment.'' Truman knew well the high cost already paid in taking back the Pacific islands: Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Midway. At Iwo Jima-- where, in the immortal words of Adm. Chester Nimitz, ``uncommon valor was a common virtue''--more marines were killed than in the entire Korean war. And then, there was Okinawa, the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War and the last great engagement of World War II. Okinawa demonstrated with brutal clarity how viciously the Japanese would fight to defend their home islands. Nearly 190,000 Army and Marine combat troops and an armada of 1,200 ships--second in size only to the Normandy invasion-- began the assault. In less than three months of battle, 12,000 Americans were killed, a total representing nearly 25 percent of all the American deaths from 9 years of war in Vietnam. A 19-year-old soldier wrote of the butchery of Okinawa in his last letter home 2 days before he was killed: ``the fear is not so much of death itself * * * [as it is] the terror and anguish and utter horror in the final moments that precede death in this battle.'' The losses suffered by American ships and sailors at Okinawa remain the greatest in world naval history: 30 ships sunk, 368 damaged, and more than 5,000 sailors killed by kamikaze attacks during a battle fought after it was clear to the world that Japan had lost the war. Mr. President, using Iwo Jima and Okinawa as a measure, according to a Pentagon briefing received by Truman, a minimum of 250,000 and as many as 600,000 American lives would be lost in an invasion of the home islands, predicted to be fought out for over a year, island by island, beach by beach, cave to cave, and, in the end, hand to hand. Douglas MacArthur and Winston Churchill both estimated that one million allied soldiers would be killed in an invasion of Honshu, Hokkaido, Shikoku, and Kyushu, the Japanese home islands. The Pentagon predicted 20,000 Americans would die in the first month alone. For Truman, this potential human cost was intolerable. If there was a way--any way--to avoid such bloodshed, it seemed worth taking. Historian David McCollough said the explanation for why Truman used the bomb was one word: ``Okinawa. He wanted to stop the killing.'' I believe this one fact, standing alone, fully justified Truman's decision to use the atom bomb on Japan: Not one American life was lost in an invasion of the heavily fortified home islands of the Empire of Japan. Additional facts also support Truman's decision. Some revisionists argue that the bomb was unnecessary because Japan was planning to surrender. This is plainly refuted by the facts. Three days after the Enola Gay dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, killing 70,000 people and virtually destroying the city, the Chief of Staff of the Japanese Army, Gen. Yoshijiro Umezu, assured the Supreme War Council meeting in Tokyo that his troops could ``turn back the invading American force and get better terms than the unconditional surrender'' demanded by the Allies. On August 9, in a meeting in his bomb shelter, Umezu was interrupted by an officer who announced that a second nuclear weapon had been dropped on Nagasaki. The General's response: ``I can say with confidence that we will be able to destroy the major part of an invading force.'' The Japanese leadership was caught between a realization of the inevitability of defeat and their cultural tradition in which suicide was honorable, and surrender was sacrilege. They did not want a negotiated peace. They chose, instead, to commit national suicide. As the Japanese War Minister, General Anami, said, ``would it not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?'' Emperor Hirohito's war-ending statement confirmed the role the atomic bombs played in ending the war. Hirohito cited the atomic bomb, which Japan was then hurriedly developing, in his taped broadcast to the nation announcing Japan's surrender on August 15, 1945. ``The enemy has begun to employ a most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable. To continue would result in the collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation.'' So, in assessing whether the atomic bomb was needed to shorten the war and to save the lives of American and Allied soldiers, let us not forget: The surrender of Japan did not occur until 5 days after the second atomic bomb was dropped. Americans must not glorify in what was done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but neither should we apologize for it. It is indeed a paradox of the 20th century that the weapons of war are, at times, necessary to end war, to prevent war, and to advance the cause of peace. But, in view of the war's end and the 50 year peace that has ensued, Pacific war veterans can take pride in just that. In August 1995, Japan is endowed with political stability and is a thriving nation of human freedom and enterprise. The rubble of war has, phoenix-like, arisen from the ashes as an international center of democracy, culture, and learning. It is a historical aberration that the vanquished of August 1945 arguably benefited more than the victors. World War II freed the Japanese and German people from evil, destructive regimes and re-directed their national potential in ways that have brought their people, and the world, [[Page S 12748]] unquantifiable economic, political, and cultural benefits. Japan, with few natural resources, now produces over 10 percent of the world's goods and services, and has become our friend and ally, our partner in peace and economic enterprise, a source of stability in the bustling Pacific rim, and a major engine of international commerce. So, as we commemorate the 50 years of peace and stability that began at the end of World War II, let us not forget the ultimate sacrifice made by 300,000 young American soldiers, sailors, and aviators who accomplished the redemption of the Earth. Surely, these young men and women from Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, and every other State of the Union, realized the risks they ran and the ultimate price that they might pay. But they also knew that, while the price of freedom is high, the price of oppression is far higher. With the courage of this conviction, they willingly offered their lives to defend transcendent principle and to preserve the promise of freedom for fellow human beings born and yet unborn. They fought for neither power nor treasure, and the only foreign land they now revere lies beneath countless crosses and Stars of David where their fallen comrades rest. America's World War II veterans embody all that is strong, noble and true about this Nation. They and their departed friends--and all others who have protected the United States in peacetime and in war--served as good soldiers and good citizens. Their high standard of allegiance has enriched our national consciousness and has cultivated and sustained a sense of purpose and patriotism in Americans across this great land. In selflessly laying their lives on the line, they helped ensure that, throughout the world, the strong are just, the weak secure, and the peace preserved for generations to come. Mr. President, in this year of commemoration, I know I share the sentiments of all Americans in saying to World War II veterans and their families: I salute you. Your country thanks you. God bless each of you.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield? Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. We have been contacted by the acquisition people in the Army, and they are fully supportive--for one reason; they support $5 million of this request because of the need for what they call a cold weather fix. Some of these weapons had been damaged as a result of storage and cold weather, and there is a retrofit required for that. The other $15 million they believe is essential for the replenishment of those that eventually have to be retired. It is also important to note that the Army will be providing TOW 2B's to the U.S. Marine Corps. While the focus is on the Army, we have to remember some of these missiles will be going to the U.S. Marine Corps. As the Senator from Alaska said, this is the premier tank killer in the inventory. There is not anything like it. It is the best in the world. Clearly, since it is the desire to use the $20 million as indicated, I believe the committee's position ought to be supported. I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. KYL. There are points to be made in a program that the United States has invested over $1 billion over the last decade. It is one of the most successful programs that has ever been run by the Defense Department in terms of meeting schedule and cost rules. In fact, the GAO has indicated that it has met every one of the technical milestones. I really do not think anybody has criticized this program on technical grounds. In fact, the Senator from Iowa has discussed some of the really unique and highly technical aspects of the program. I am sure he would agree that there have been great strides made in the development of this kind of a program, although he has other objections to the expenditure of this money. In my view, Mr. President, it is important to have a very highly leveraged, highly technical kind of program like this. We will not deploy this kind of a program, perhaps ever, but at least not in the foreseeable future. It is important to have this kind of a program, the only one of its kind, the only directed energy program, that still exists in our arsenal, as one of those hedges. That is frankly what this program is at this time. The 70 million in funding here does not provide any kind of deployment decision or anything of that sort. We are just in the research stage. It keeps that research alive. So it would be a tragedy to kill this program after the amount of money that has been spent and the technology that has been developed. Quickly, to respond to the arguments made by the Senator from Iowa. The notion that it will cost $30 billion to deploy--of course, nobody is talking about deployment. We are not close to a deployment decision. This is simply ongoing technology. I do not think that is an argument against the expenditure of this research money. Second, it is not cost effective. It is too premature to evaluate that. We all know that a boost phase intercept is the way to go. We would like to have that. This is the only boost phase intercept program we are talking about now, and it is not something that ought to be eliminated. We would be left with nothing, in that event. To the third argument that it is an ABM Treaty violation, I know the Senator from Iowa knows there is nothing in the ABM Treaty that precludes us from developing or from researching, weapons of this sort. Obviously, we would face that question if and when we got ready to demonstrate or deploy it. We are not at that stage for many, many years. The fourth argument, it may not work. Again, Mr. President, no one has ever criticized this program on technical grounds. The GAO, as I said, has said it is one of the best run programs, and we are a long way from having exactly what we need to actually deploy this kind of a program. Finally, to the idea of the Senator from Iowa that the Russians or somebody else could make the same kind of reflective material on their missiles, their ICBM's, and defeat the laser, he indicated he was a reader of science fiction, and that is pretty good science fiction, but nobody figured how to do that. You have weight considerations, heat considerations. The Russians have not even discovered the same kind of material yet, so that is something, obviously, for the scientists to think about, but not a reason for us not to expend the money. As a matter of fact, it is probably a reason to do continued research, to ensure that we could defeat any kind of similar research. This is a very good program. We are only talking about research money. We are a long way from any decision to deploy. It is the kind of program we need as a hedge against the kind of presence that may exist now or in the future. I hope the committee's position is supported.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. KYL. Thank you. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. President, the first primary argument of the Senator from Iowa on this is that we have an effective antisatellite weapon, and if we have to use this, it will create space junk.