Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to yield 7 minutes of additional time to the junior Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the reason I asked the key provision of that amendment be read is to illustrate its simplicity. It is very simple and yet I think very important and necessary as an improvement to the bill which is before us now. I want to begin by complimenting the manager of the bill, the Senator from Utah, for not only getting the bill to this point but for insisting that we have habeas corpus reform in this important piece of legislation. My amendment will improve the habeas corpus reforms by, as was just read, ensuring that a case in the State courts can be reviewed in the State court system, but that as long as the State court system provides adequate and effective remedies, that person does not have the authority to go over to the Federal courts and relitigate all of the same claims in the Federal courts. Of course, it should go without saying that there is always a review in the U.S. Supreme Court from any decision of the highest court of a State. So there is ultimately still the potential for Federal review of a State court decision. I would like to illustrate exactly what we are talking about here with a hypothetical and a real case. The Senator from Oklahoma is here. One of the reasons the Senator from Oklahoma is so interested in this provision is because of the recent tragedy in his State. Let us assume two cases in the State of Oklahoma. In the first case, there is a robbery and in the course of that robbery someone is shot. The person is tried in the State courts, there is an appeal to the appeals court and on up to the supreme court of the State--eventually a prosecution, a conviction and a sentencing. Thereafter that State court prisoner may file writs of habeas corpus in the Oklahoma State court system as often as that person can find grounds for doing so. Those writs can be determined legally in the appeals and supreme court of the State of Oklahoma, and eventually of course, after the supreme court of Oklahoma has ruled, they can be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. So that State court prisoner has virtually an unlimited right to take these writs of habeas corpus up and down the State court system. In today's law he also has the right to go to the Federal court system and essentially relitigate the exact issues. ``I have some newly discovered evidence that will prove I was innocent of the crime. I have gone up and down the State court system, now I would like to try my luck in the Federal courts.'' Under existing law, that person can do it. What the bill says is we are going to put a couple of roadblocks in the way. It should not be quite so easy for you to you do that. You at least ought to have some time limits within which to file these habeas corpus writs in Federal court, and the Federal courts at least ought to give great weight to the previous decisions of the supreme court. Those are both sound provisions but they obviously do not preclude the State court prisoner from going to Federal court. Let us take, on the other hand, the perpetrators of the heinous tragedy in Oklahoma City a few weeks ago. They will probably--he or they--will probably be tried in the Federal district court in Oklahoma. If convicted, there could be an appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court. But those people, having been convicted, will have their writs of habeas corpus reviewed only in the Federal district court and circuit courts of the United States of America. They do not have the right to go over to the Oklahoma State court system and relitigate those same claims. So, whereas the State court prisoner can use both the State system and the Federal system, in duplicate appeals, a Federal prisoner may only use the Federal system. The constitutionality is obviously clear. Either the State courts or the Federal courts are competent to adjudicate constitutional claims. That is established. There is no legal question about that whatsoever. But the Federal court prisoner has one set of options. The State court prisoner, under the stats quo, has two sets of options. And we are limiting them a little bit by the bill before us. My amendment says: No, a Federal court prisoner adjudicates his claims in Federal court. A State court prisoner adjudicates his claims in the State court. The only time the State court prisoner can go to a Federal court is from an ultimate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. This will end the duplicative appeals that we have all been complaining about. This and only this amendment will end those duplicative appeals. Because it will still be quite possible for State court prisoners under the bill before us to adjudicate their claims in State court and then go to the Federal court so long as they do it in a timely manner. So long as they meet the time limits we impose in this bill, they can still go to the Federal court and relitigate exactly the same claims. What ordinarily happens is that the Federal district courts or circuit courts of appeals say, ``Wait a minute, the State court has already decided that. Your appeal is summarily denied.'' But that takes time. I just spoke to the presiding judge of the Arizona court of appeals and he said we summarily dismissed many of these. But he said every one of them has to be considered. And that is the point. From a very small number to a very large number, the district courts and the circuit courts of appeals are having to handle these writs that have already been decided by the State court and, as the Federal courts have said over and over again, the State courts are perfectly able to resolve these issues. Mr. President, this is not just an idea that I have come up with. This is what is happening in the District of Columbia today, and has been for the last 25 years, because 25 years ago the Congress passed a law and established that in the District of Columbia courts--by the way, the District of Columbia has in effect a State court system which parallels the U.S. District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. So it is similar to States in that it has its own system of courts. We in the Congress 25 years ago said that prisoners in the District of Columbia can only use that quasi-State court system here in the District of Columbia. That was tested in the U.S. Supreme Court and the constitutionality was upheld in the case of Swain versus Pressley in 1977. And there have also been other opinions with respect to the constitutionality of what was done. One judge, as a matter of fact, even wrote that because of this experiment in the District of Columbia, which has worked very well for the last 25 years, that the Congress ought to consider the same kind of limitation of remedies in the State courts, exactly what we are proposing here today with my amendment. So at the invitation of Judge McGowan, we are proposing an amendment which says in the State courts, [[Page S7830]] you do like the District of Columbia. You exhaust your remedies in the State court. You can go to the U.S. Supreme Court, but not jump over to the Federal District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals to litigate the same claims. Judge Robert Bork has written a letter in support of my amendment. He writes, in part: Your proposed amendment to the antiterrorism bill to stop the abuse of Federal collateral remedies is an excellent and much-needed reform. There is no doubt about the constitutionality of the provision you propose, nor is there any doubt about the need for your amendment. Your amendment is a sorely needed reform to a situation that is now out of hand. Mr. President, the constitutionality of what I propose is beyond question. It has been tried for 25 years here in the District of Columbia. It is found to be very workable. Everybody agrees that we need to limit duplicative appeals. Therefore, it seems to me that, if we are to really make the provision of habeas corpus reform in this bill work, we do not just play with it at the edges by proposing some time limits and providing for deference to State court proceedings. We go right to the heart of matter and say if you have a complete and adequate remedy in the State courts, then that is what you will get except, of course, for your ultimate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. You cannot jump over to the Federal system of courts to readjudicate those very same claims. The Senator from Oklahoma is on his feet. I would like to yield time to the Senator from Oklahoma to further discuss this particular amendment. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 735, the Dole-Hatch Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995. I thank Senator Dole and Senator Hatch for including in the bill my provision, which strengthens the protection of Federal computers against terrorism. Mr. President, the Internet is a worldwide system of computers and computer networks that enables users to communicate and share information. The system is comparable to the worldwide telephone network. According to a Time magazine article, the Internet connects over 4.8 million host systems, including educational institutions, Government facilities, military bases, and commercial businesses. Millions of private individuals are connected to the Internet through their personal computers and modems. Computer criminals have quickly recognized the Internet as a haven for criminal possibilities. During the 1980's, the development and broad-based appeal of the personal computer sparked a period of dramatic technological growth. This has raised the stakes in the battle over control of the Internet and all computer systems. Computer criminals know all the ways to exploit the Internet's easy access, open nature, and global scope. From the safety of a telephone in a discrete location, the computer criminal can anonymously access personal, business, and Government files. And because these criminals can easily gain access without disclosing their identities, it is extremely difficult to apprehend and successfully prosecute them. Prosecution of computer criminals is complicated further by continually changing technology, lack of precedence, and weak or nonexistent State and Federal laws. And the costs are passed on to service providers, the judicial system, and most importantly--the victims. Mr. President, section 527 will deter this type of crime. This section requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review existing sentencing guidelines as they apply to sections 1030(a)(4) and 1030(a)(5) of title 18 of the United States Code--the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Commission must also establish guidelines to ensure that criminals convicted under these sections receive mandatory minimum sentences for not less than 6 months. Currently, judges are given great discretion in sentencing under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In many cases, the sentences don't match the crimes, and criminals receive light sentences for serious crimes. Mandatory minimum sentences will deter computer ``hacking'' crimes, and protect the infrastructure of Federal computer systems. Everybody recognizes that it is wrong for an intruder to enter a home and wander around; it doesn't make sense to view a criminal who breaks into a computer system differently. We have a national anti-stalking law to protect citizens on the street, but it doesn't cover stalking on the communications network. We should not treat these criminals differently simply because they possess new weapons. These new technologies, which so many Americans enjoy, were developed over many years. I understand that policy can't catch up with technology overnight, but we can start filling in the gaps created by these tremendous advancements. We cannot allow complicated technology to paralyze us into inactivity. It is vital that we protect the information and infrastructure of this country. Because computers are the nerve centers of the world's information and communication system, there are catastrophic possibilities. Imagine an international terrorist penetrating the Federal Reserve System and bringing to a halt every Federal financial transaction. Or worse yet, imagine a terrorist who gains access to the Department of Defense, and gains control over NORAD. The best known case of computer intrusion is detailed in the book, ``The Cuckoo's Egg.'' In March 1989, West German authorities arrested computer hackers and charged them with a series of intrusions into United States computer systems through the University of California at Berkeley. Eastern block intelligence agencies had sponsored the activities of the hackers beginning in May 1986. The only punishment the hackers were given was probation. An example of the pending threat is illustrated in the Wednesday, May 10, headline from the Hill entitled ``Hired Hackers Crack House Computers.'' Auditors from Price Waterhouse managed to break into House Members' [[Page S7775]] computer systems. According to the article, the auditors' report stated that they could have changed documents, passwords, and other sensitive information in those systems. What is to stop international terrorists from gaining similar access, and obtaining secret information relating to our national security? Mandatory minimum sentences will make the criminals think twice before illegally accessing computer files. In a September 1994 Los Angeles Times article about computer intrusion, Scott Charney, chief of the computer crime unit for the U.S. Department of Justice, stated ``the threat is an incresing threat,'' and ``[i]t could be a 16-year- old kid out for fun or it could be someone who is actively working to get information from the United States.'' He added, there is a ``growing new breed of digital outlaws who threaten national security and public safety.'' For example, the Los Angeles Times article reported that, in Los Angeles alone, ther are at least four outlaw computer hackers who, in recent years, have demonstrated they can seize control of telephones and break into Government computers. The article also mentioned that Government reports further reveal that foreign intelligence agencies and mercenary computer hackers have been breaking into military computers. For example, a hacker is now awaiting trial in San Francisco on epionage charges for cracking an Army computer system and gaining access to FBI files on former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. According to the 1993 Department of Defense report, such a threat is very real: ``The nature of this changing motivation makes computer intruders' skills high-interest targets for criminal elements and hostile adversaries.'' Mr. President, the September 1993 Department of Defense report added that, if hired by terrorists, these hackers could cripple the Nation's telephone system, ``create significant public health and safety problems, and cause serious economic shocks.'' The hackers could bring an entire city to a standstill. The report states that, as the world becomes wired for computer networks, there is a greater threat the networks will be used for spying and terrorism. In a 1992 report, the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee warned, ``known individuals in the hacker community have ties with adversary organizations. Hackers frequently have international ties.'' Mr. President, section 527 of this bill will deter terrorist activity and enhance our national security.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I join Senator Dole in introducing the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This bill will deter frivolous inmate lawsuits. Statistics complied by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts show that inmate suits are clogging the courts and draining precious judicial resources. Nationally, in 1994, a total of 238,590 civil cases were brought in U.S. district court. More than one-fourth of these cases--60,086--were brought by prisoners. Most inmate lawsuits are meritless. Courts have complained about the abundance of such cases. Filing frivolous civil rights lawsuits has become a recreational activity for long-term residents of our prisons. James v. Quinlan, 886 F.2d 37, 40 n. 5 (3rd Cir. 1989) quoting Gabel v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 124, 125 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Indeed, in Gabel, the fifth circuit expressed frustration with the glut of ``frivolous or malicious appeals by disgruntled state prisoners.'' Gabel v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 124, 125 (per curiam). The court wrote: About one appeal in every six which came to our docket (17.3%) the last four months was a state prisoner's pro se civil rights case. A high percentage of these are meritless, and many are transparently frivolous. So far in the current year (July 1-October 31, 1987), for example, the percentage of such appeals in which reversal occurred was 5.08. Partial reversal occurred in another 2.54%, for a total of 7.62% in which any relief was granted. . . . Over 92% were either dismissed or affirmed in full. For the same period section 1983 prisoner appeals prosecuted without counsel were our largest single category of cases which survived long enough to be briefed and enter our screening process so as to require full panel consideration. The number of these stands at almost 22%, with the next largest category--diversity cases--coming in at 16%, federal question appeals at 14.5%, and both general civil rights cases and criminal appeals coming in at something over 11% each. Such figures suggest that pro se civil rights litigation has become a recreational activity for state prisoners in our Circuit . . . Id. As Walter Berns recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, ``Nowhere is [the] problem [of frivolous lawsuits] more pressing than in our prison system.'' (April 24, 1995) Legislation is needed because of the large and growing number of prisoner civil rights complaints, the burden that disposing of meritless complaints imposes on efficient judicial administration, and the need to discourage prisoners from filing frivolous complaints as a means of gaining a ``short sabbatical in the nearest Federal courthouse.'' Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 327 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). The Dole-Kyl ``Prisoner Litigation Reform Act'' will: Remove the ability of prisoners to file free lawsuits, instead making them pay full filing fees and court costs. Require judges to dismiss frivolous cases before they bog down the court system. Prohibit inmate lawsuits for mental and emotional distress. Retract good-time credit earned by inmates if they file lawsuits deemed frivolous. Require the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Dole-Kyl bill is based on similar provisions that were enacted in Arizona. Arizona's recent reforms have already reduced State prisoner cases by 50 percent. Now is the time to reproduce these commonsense reforms in Federal law. If we achieve a 50-percent reduction in bogus Federal prisoner claims, we will free up judicial resources for claims with merit by both prisoners and nonprisoners. Section 2 of the bill covers proceedings in forma pauperis. It adds a new subsection to 28 U.S.C. section 1915. The subsection provides that whenever a Federal, State, or local prisoner seeks to commence an action or proceeding in Federal court as a poor person, the prisoner must pay a partial filing fee of 20 percent of the larger of the average monthly balance in, or the average monthly deposits to, his inmate account. The fee may not exceed the full statutory fee. If the inmate can show that circumstances render him unable to make payment of even the partial fee, the court has the power to waive the entire filing fee. Section 2 will require prisoners to pay a very small share of the large burden they place on the Federal judicial system by paying a small filing fee upon commencement of lawsuits. In doing so, the provision will deter frivolous inmate lawsuits. The modest monetary outlay will force prisoners to think twice about the case and not just file reflexively. Lumbert v. Illinois Department of Correction, 837 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir. 1987) (Posner, J.). Prisoners will have to make the same decision that law-abiding Americans must make: Is the lawsuit worth the price? Criminals should not be given a special privilege that other Americans do not have. The only thing different about a criminal is that he has raped, robbed, or killed. A criminal should not be rewarded for these actions. The volume of prisoner litigation represents a large burden on the judicial system, which is already overburdened by increases in nonprisoner litigation. Yet prisoners have very little incentive not to file nonmeritorious lawsuits. Unlike other prospective litigants who seek poor person status, prisoners have all the necessities of life supplied, including the materials required to bring their lawsuits. For a prisoner who qualifies for poor person status, there is no cost to bring a suit and, therefore, no incentive to limit suits to cases that have some chance of success. The filing fee is small enough not to deter a prisoner with a meritorious claim, yet large enough to deter frivolous claims and multiple filings. As noted above, the bill contains a provision to waive even the partial filing fee. This provision assures that prisoners with meritorious claims will not be shut out from court for lack of sufficient money to pay even the partial fee. Finally, section 2 of the Dole-Kyl bill also imposes the same payment system for court costs as it does for filing fees. This provision, like the filing fee provision, will ensure that inmates evaluate the merits of their claims. Section 3 of this bill creates a new statute that requires judicial screening of a complaint, or any portion of the complaint, in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. The bill establishes two standards a prisoner must meet. Under the first standard, the court must dismiss the complaint if satisfied that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be [[Page S7527]] granted. Under the second standard, the court must dismiss claims for monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Sections 4 and 5 of the bill will bar inmate lawsuits for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody unless they can show physical injury. Of the 60,086 prisoner petitions in 1994 about two- thirds were prisoner civil rights petitions, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. courts. Prisoner civil rights petitions are brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Section 1983 petitions are claims brought in Federal court by State inmates seeking redress for a violation of their civil rights. ``The volume of section 1983 litigation is substantial by any standard,'' according to the Justice Department's report on section 1983 litigation, ``Challenging the Conditions of Prisons and Jails.'' Indeed, the Administrative Office [AO] of the U.S. courts counted only 218 cases in 1966, the first year that State prisoners' rights cases were recorded as a specific category of litigation. The number climbed to 26,824 by 1992. When compared to the total number of all civil cases filed in the Nation's U.S. district courts, more than 1 in every 10 civil filings is now a section 1983 lawsuit, according to the AO. Section 6 of the bill will deter frivolous suits by adding to the U.S.C. a sanction to revoke good-time credits when a frivolous suit is filed. Specifically, the bill would require that in a civil action brought by an adult convicted of a crime and confined in a Federal correctional facility, the court may order the revocation of earned good-time credit if the court finds that: First, the claim was filed for a malicious purpose, second, the claim was filed solely to harass the party against which it was filed, or third, the claimant testifies falsely or otherwise knowingly presents false evidence or information to the court. Additionally, if the Attorney General determines that any of these criteria have been met, the Attorney General may recommend the revocation of earned good-time credit to the court. Section 7 will make the exhaustion of administrative remedies mandatory. Many prisoner cases seek relief for matters that are relatively minor and for which the prison grievance system would provide an adequate remedy. Section 7 of this bill would require an inmate, prior to filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, to exhaust all available administrative remedies certified as adequate by the U.S. attorney general. An exhaustion requirement is appropriate for prisoners given the burden that their cases place on the Federal court system, the availability of administrative remedies, and the lack of merit of many of the claims filed under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Mr. President, in a dissenting opinion in Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 211 (1985), then-Justice Rehnquist wrote, ``With less to profitably occupy their time than potential litigants on the outside, and with a justified feeling that they have much to gain and virtually nothing to lose, prisoners appear to be far more prolific litigants than other groups in the population.'' The Dole-Kyl bill will stem the tide of meritless prisoner cases. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I support what the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, is attempting to do, ensure that sufficient funding is made available for the work of the National Institutes of Health [NIH]. I strongly support the important work that body is undertaking, particularly with respect to research on breast and prostrate cancer, heart disease and diabetes. However, what troubles me about this amendment is the proposition that it isn't possible to reorder priorities within function 550--the health account--to make the necessary funding available to the NIH. To make the amount of funding contemplated by the amendment available to the NIH, we simply have to shift $1 billion within function 550, an account that will total $120 billion in fiscal year 1996, rising to $150 billion by 2002. Instead, the amendment takes money out of other accounts, including funding for veterans, and that seriously concerns me. The budget resolution already contemplates a phase-out of construction of VA facilities. Higher prescription copayments for certain veterans are assumed. Outlays for veterans programs would actually amount to $500 million less next year compared to this year. And the Hatfield amendment would take another $224 million a year out of veterans programs on top of that. If I thought that it wasn't possible for Congress, for the appropriators, the Health and Human Services Department or the NIH itself to prioritize spending for the good and necessary work that the NIH does, I might be willing to support this amendment. However, we all know that the budget resolution doesn't require that NIH funding be cut, only that funding within function 550 not exceed a specified level. There are ways to do that without adversely affecting the work that the NIH does. For example, the growth of Medicaid could be slowed, as Senator Gramm proposed yesterday. I am confident that, as the author of the amendment and as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield won't allow the NIH budget to be cut too deeply when it comes time to appropriate money for the NIH. The Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH won't sacrifice critical research when it comes time to prioritize the use of funds that are ultimately appropriated. Mr. President, I want to work with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to find a solution, but one which doesn't adversely affect our Nation's veterans.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am sorry if I misspoke with regard to the tax cuts [[Page S7169]] being proposed by the Gramm amendment. The bottom line, the liberals who oppose the Gramm tax cuts do so because they like taxes, because they want the money to spend, not because they are going to support a budget resolution that does not have these tax cuts in it. If any of our liberal colleagues are willing to stand up and prove me wrong by saying no, they will vote for this budget resolution so long as it does not have the Gramm tax cuts in it, then I will eat these words and say, fine, I accept their vote. I suggest, Mr. President, that the talk about opposing this amendment, because they are interested in balancing the budget, is just so much talk because in the end they will vote against the budget resolution that balances the budget. They would rather have the tax money to spend. That is why they oppose the Gramm tax cuts. I hope that our colleagues will support the Gramm tax cuts. Mr. President, I believe if they do so they will be striking a blow for the American economy and for the American family.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding. Mr. President, I express my strong support for the Gramm amendment. This amendment is about keeping our promises to the American people to provide tax relief to the American families. We have heard a lot of criticism about this amendment. It provides a $500 per child tax credit for the American family. It provides for marriage penalty relief, spousal IRA, a new American dream savings account to allow people to buy a home, provides a credit to families caring for elderly family members. It keeps faith with our seniors. It does not take a nickel from Social Security. In fact, it raises the Social Security earnings limitation, something that the senior citizens from Arizona have been fighting for since I has been here. It enables seniors to be able to work without having a penalty. It provides estate and gift tax relief, provides incentive for the purchase of long-term care insurance, something all of our seniors are interested in. This amendment also provides incentives for businesses to grow and create new jobs. Capital gains tax reform--there is over $5 trillion in backed-up capital, in pent-up capital, in our society that could be freed with this kind of capital gains tax relief. That means jobs for Americans. This amendment provides for a home office deduction. For small business expensing. It repeals the corporate alternative minimum tax and provides for neutral cost recovery. Balancing the budget, Mr. President, is important, but balancing the budget is not the only goal. At best we will produce a Government that still taxes too much, spends too much, and regulates too much. With the Gramm amendment we are saying to the American people that we trust them to spend their own hard-earned tax dollars more wisely than the bureaucrats in Washington. They know how to take care of their family and how to invest and create new jobs. While some here talk of ordinary Americans, we believe that Americans are extraordinary. Given the opportunity, they can improve their own lives and the lives of their families. They just need the resources to do so. Who cares, Mr. President, more about a child's education than a parent? Give them the $500 child tax credit. Who spends the money more wisely and efficiently? The St. Mary's Food Bank in Arizona or the Department of Agriculture, that administers nutrition programs? If I had $500 to contribute to an entity to provide for the poor, I am going to contribute it to a local charity sooner than to the U.S. Government. Who is a better job creator, the Federal Government or private business? The Gramm amendment means Congress has to prioritize the remaining spending, like American families have to do. By reducing taxes, it provides a chance to stimulate economic activity and produce more revenue for the Treasury. Mr. President, when a retailer has a sale on a Saturday, does he expect to receive less income as a result of that sale? No. By reducing the rates, he intends to bring more people in and more than make up by increased volume what he has lost in the price that he charges. The same thing occurs when we reduce taxes rates. We are not producing less revenue to the Treasury. We actually--and experience proves this--produce more revenue to the Treasury by virtue of that reduction. Finally, Mr. President, I heard some conversation a while ago that basically suggests the liberals in this body believe that this amendment will make it more difficult to balance the budget and deliver. They oppose it. Here is my challenge to all of the liberals who have spoken here. Will they support the budget resolution without this tax increase in it? Do any of our liberal colleagues want to stand up and say yes, they will vote for this amendment, for the budget resolution before the Senate, so long as we do not have the tax increases in it? The answer, Mr. President, is no. And the reason they will not support the budget resolution even without the tax increases is because fundamentally they do not support a balanced budget.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me speak for a few minutes as well. Mr. President, I noted with interest your comments of just a little while ago using some Wyoming phraseology to explain why we need to get on with this job. I think that is the thinking of most people in this country that kind of wonder why back here in Washington, DC, the people who have the responsibility for managing our financial affairs of the U.S. Government cannot quite see it the way they do, the way they have to manage their lives every day. During the Easter recess, I traveled all around my State of Arizona, and I talked to people just like the folks you were referring to. They get up early in the morning, get their kids off to school, work hard all day long, come home tired, and they wonder why the Federal Government is asking them to give more and more of what they have earned to the Federal Government so that people back here in Washington can make decisions about how that money should be spent. They wonder why the Federal Government cannot balance its budget like they have to balance their own families' budgets every day. They understand that the Government is different than an individual or a family. They understand that there are tough decisions, that from time to time we are asked to spend money on things that have large political constituencies. They understand those things. However, they have also come to the conclusion that by and large Government is not a really great buy. That all of these years they have been asking Government to do things for them they have, in effect, hired the Government to solve problems, it has not been a very good buy. We have spent $5 trillion on welfare, and we have more people who are below the poverty line today than we did when the Great Society began, and a host of problems that clearly the welfare system has not solved. They see a Federal debt that is now approaching numbers that no one can even comprehend--approaching $5 trillion, a number that none of us can really comprehend. They see annual deficits, and they wonder why after the politicians a couple of years ago promised them that we would achieve a balanced budget, at least the budgets would be submitted that would get America on a path to achieving a balanced budget, they see the President's budget this year that does not even try. It just gives up. It says, I understand that the American people want a balanced budget, but President Clinton says I am going to be spending, or recommend that the Congress be spending, about $200 billion each year more than we take in. So at the end of his 5-year budget we have added $1 trillion to the national debt. They ask why this cannot stop, why the Congress cannot get its act together. In the very last election on November 8, I think they sent a very strong message which has been responded to in both the House and the Senate, at least by the Republicans. In the House, just about 5 days ago, a budget was passed which achieves balance in 7 years, the same amount of time that was called for under the constitutional amendment that failed by only one vote. It says that by the year 2002 we will have a balanced budget, and at that time we begin actually paying off our national debt. It is too much of a task to be resolved in 1 year. It would be like asking people to pay off their home mortgage in 1 or 2 years. It is too big for that. But over 7 years, we can restrain the growth in spending to such a degree that even though most programs will continue to grow, it will grow at a slower rate, enabling the Government to save enough money, about $1 trillion over that 7 years, that by the end of the 7 years we will be in balance. What does this mean to the average American? They know instinctively it has to be done. They know what happens when they do not balance their budget. They realize that their standard of living, and more importantly, their children's and grandchildren's standard of living is being threatened as a result of this huge deficit. One of the problems, of course, caused by the deficit, is that it raises interest rates. By crowding out the market for money, interest rates go up. We have estimates that if we could get the budget balanced it would reduce interest rates by about 2 percent. Think what a reduction of 2-percent interest rates would mean on the average home mortgage or the car purchase, or anything else that we buy on time. Of course, having a big deficit requires citizens to pay more in taxes. For one thing, we have to pay $200 to $300 billion interest on the Federal debt every year. Until we begin to pay that debt off, we will continue to have the interest expense every year. Not only is that more taxes we have to pay, but it is money that we cannot spend on other things that people would like Government to spend on. There have been a lot of speeches particularly on the other side of the aisle during the last week that say, look what will happen if we pass this budget. Look what will happen if we balance the budget. Mr. President, look what will happen if we do not balance the budget. That is the question. It reminds me of the true story one of my colleagues was telling me about. An oil rig was burning in the North Sea. It was 1,200 feet from the rig down to the North Atlantic. It was pitch black, except for the fact there was oil burning on the surface of the water. One of the people who was working on the rig jumped off of that platform, over 1,200 feet into the water. He survived. A television person interviewing him in the hospital asked him the question, Why, knowing that it was 1,200 feet down, you could not see anything, it was pitch black except for the oil that was burning on the water, why did you jump in the water? And his answer was, of course, because there was so much fire at my back, I knew that if I did not, I would be burned alive. In other words, the question was not might something bad happen to me if I jump off; the question is, most certainly something bad will happen to me if I do not. The question is not, will something bad happen if we pass the balanced budget; the question is, what will happen to this country if we do not? I think almost everyone recognizes that while there may be some concerns about the restraining of the growth in spending if we do pass this balanced budget, that the alternative is far worse, an alternative that relegates our future generation to a lower standard of living than we have been able to enjoy in this country. That is why we have to pass the balanced budget. Now, Mr. President, one of the concerns that I have had is that we have not gotten a lot of leadership on the other side. There is no alternative budget. We put the President's budget on the floor last Friday, and said what about this? Do any Members think this is a good idea? Nobody did. It failed, 99 to 0. One of the reasons, of course, was that it did not even attempt to restrain spending and achieve a balance. Instead, it has deficits at the rate of about $200 billion each year, for the next 5 years. Right now, the national debt is approaching $5 trillion. It is $4.8 trillion to be exact. That is about $18,500 for every man, woman, and child in the country. I just had a new grandchildren born about 12 days ago. His share of the national debt, right now, is $18,500. That is unfair to him. In the last election, people were saying it is important we do something about the debt, because they saw for the first time in history that future [[Page S7030]] generations did not have the same opportunity that we did, that the American spirit of optimism that each succeeding generation would do better than the last was not necessarily going to come true. When they gave that message, they also gave a mandate to do something about it, to eliminate that $18,500 of debt for every man, woman, and child in the country. That is an average of about $74,000 of debt for the average family of four. Even if Congress balanced the budget this very moment, the average American family would still be stuck with that bill of $74,000. Of course, that rivals the mortgage on most homes in this country. In order just to pay the interest on that, the average family will have to pay about $5,000 a year annually. Mr. President, stop and think about that for a moment. What we are saying is, just to pay the interest on the debt, every family has to pay about $5,000 in taxes. This is one of the reasons we have to get the debt down, and why balancing the budget will help the average American people, because every year that that debt remains at the level it is that $5,000 in taxes goes to pay the interest on the debt. It cannot be used for other expenditures and we cannot reduce the tax burden. At least it said we cannot reduce the tax burden, because, obviously, the interest on the debt has to be paid. Now, this $5,000 in taxes annually is about $430 a month, just in interest payments. That assumes no other payment. So, that is what the average American family is spending every single month with the debt we have today. As I said, put this into perspective for every year in which the Federal Government runs these $200 billion deficits. The average young person will pay an additional $5,000 in taxes over his or her lifetime. Right now, a child born this year will pay about $187,000 in taxes because of this debt. That is what my brand-new grandson is relegated to if we cannot get this debt under control. This $5,000 in taxes, increased taxes for every year that we run these deficits, is not only a fiscal matter, Mr. President, but it is a moral matter. I think we can get bound up in all the numbers but we have to realize what we are doing to future generations. It is immoral to be spending money in our generation and not be willing to pay for it. It is as if we were running up credit card debt, and as we exit the scene we hand that debt to our children and say, ``Will you please pay the bill for the excesses during our lifetime.'' The $1 trillion in new debt that is proposed by President Clinton's budget over 5 years represents an additional $25,000 in taxes for every family, or I should say for every individual. That is $25,000 for every young man, woman, and child in this country. There is not a whole lot, Mr. President, that we can do worse for the future generations than to continue to run up this debt, because it guarantees a lower standard of living for future generations. So, as we discuss the plans for achieving balance over the course of the next 5, 6, 7 years we have to examine the arguments pro and con that are being made here. A lot of arguments against this balanced budget from the other side expressed concerns about what will happen if we do not do it. They attack particular parts of the budget. They represent no alternatives. The amendment that is pending on the floor right now, as a matter of fact, accepts the fact that we are going to achieve balance, and it says with the $170 billion that we are going to save as a result of that because of reduced interest rates, the so-called dividends that will result by doing the job we are supposed to do, the amendment on the other side says we will spend that money. We have a way of spending that money. So not only do many of the Senators on the other side of the aisle here object to balancing the budget by the year 2002 and raise arguments against balancing the budget by the year 2002, but they are very willing to take the savings that result from what we are willing to do by biting the bullet here, and spend that money before it has even been saved. That is not being very constructive about solving these problems when we know we have a big deficit, we know we have to solve it, the President's budget was defeated by 99 to 0, there is no alternative budget on the other side, all that the Senators on the other side, most of them, have done is to carp about the fact that some segment of our society is not going to get quite as much money as they have been getting over the years if we balance the budget by the year 2002. Notwithstanding the fact that spending is going to go up in most categories, it will simply go up at a lesser rate than it would otherwise, the arguments are that somebody is going to suffer because they will not get quite as much money as they otherwise would have gotten; just negative criticism of what we are trying to achieve. And, at the same time that negative criticism is coming out with no constructive alternative, the amendment on the floor now says, ``By the way, with the money you are going to save by what you are willing to do, we would like to spend $100 billion of that.'' That is not very constructive to this debate. So, as I said, during the next 3 days as we debate this and we consider the arguments back and forth, I think the primary thing we have to consider is the future of our grandchildren and our children. That is why it is important for us to accomplish this. It is important because of the savings, it is important because of what we can do with that money today, but more important, what it means to their future, what it means to the future prosperity of this country and the opportunity to create a better living in this country for those future generations. If we do not accomplish our goal of achieving balance in our budget within the next 7 years, we will not deserve the title of Senator. We will not deserve to be serving in this body because we will have failed in our obligation to those future generations. And that ultimately is why most of us sought election in the first place and are so privileged to serve in this body.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, at this time, let me yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I listened to part of it, anyway, although it gets a little repetitious. The argument I have heard discussed most from the Democratic side of the aisle is about how they would like to spend the dividend that is created by the fact that we balance the budget. In other words, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, has done a very good job of putting this thing together in such a way that after 7 years, because interest costs will be reduced, we will actually have in effect a dividend of about $170 billion. While I have not heard any suggestion from the Democratic side about how they would balance the budget, and they have certainly not indicated that they would support the way that we will achieve that balance by the year 2002, I have heard a lot of discussion about how they would like to spend the money that we save.

Mr. KYL. And going up. I further ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, according to my calculations, for every year that we have a $200 billion deficit, the average young person in this country is going to have to pay an additional $5,000 in taxes, with the result that after 5 years of Bill Clinton's budgets that is a $25,000 tax bill for the average young person in this country?

Mr. KYL. So over the 5 years of the President's budget, we are looking at an average of over $200 billion a year.

Mr. KYL. If I may conclude with this comment to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I think he certainly helped me to understand this issue better than I did. I guess I would summarize it this way: During the debate on the balanced budget amendment, we said we think we need a constitutional amendment because, otherwise, too many people in the Congress will not have the discipline to make the tough choices to bring the budget into balance. Most of our Democratic friends, many of them, said, ``No; we can do this on our own.'' Then the Senator from Pennsylvania said the only alternative to the budget that we have prepared, that brings us into balance, is a budget that the President proposed, that does not bring us into balance. According to the Senator from Pennsylvania, as a matter of fact, it averages deficits of over $200 billion a year as far as this President has calculated it, and the trend is up over $200 billion a year. That is about a $5,000 tax every year on each American. I learned from the Senator from Pennsylvania that, in addition to the fact that the Democratic side of the aisle here has proposed no alternative that will achieve a balance by the year 2002, the bulk of the discussion so far has been how to spend the dividend that is created by our budget. So not only are they not willing to support our budget, but at the same time they are criticizing our budget, they want to take the money that we save by our budget and spend that rather than returning it to the American people. Do I have this straight? Is that about the size of it?

Mr. KYL. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, how much does the President's budget show in annual deficits every year?

Mr. KYL. Let me ask the Senator from Pennsylvania a couple of other questions here. It is my understanding we are going to have the opportunity to vote on the President's budget later on today. I am sure the Senator from Pennsylvania and I will not be voting for this budget. During the debate on the balanced budget amendment I seem to recall a lot of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, our Democratic friends, asking us how we were going to get to a balanced budget. They argued they did not need to support a balanced budget constitutional amendment because they could do it on their own. They did not need a constitutional amendment. So our constitutional amendment failed by one vote. I do not recall--perhaps the Senator from Pennsylvania could help me here--I do not recall any budget having been submitted by a Senator on the Democratic side of the aisle, a budget that will bring us in balance by the year 2002 or any other year--am I mistaken? Have I missed something here?

Mr. KYL. Of course, that is what I had reference to. If I could just ask the Senator from Pennsylvania one final question? I have listened to the debate over the last 10 or 12 hours here. Much of the debate has focused----

Mr. KYL. Pardon?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Pennsylvania will yield for a question?

Mr. KYL. May I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania a couple more questions here? So, the bottom line here is you have not seen a budget proposed on the Democratic side, and I have not seen a budget proposed on the Democratic side. The only budget is the one proposed by the President. I guess we will have a chance to see whether our Democratic friends will support the President's budget, because they have no other alternative.

Mr. KYL. Has the Senator seen any constructive suggestions from the other side about how we might achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed at this time as part of the majority time.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. President, I would like to correct one thing briefly before proceeding to the comments I intended to make. It is my understanding from the staff of the Budget Committee that the veterans medical care is not--I repeat ``not''--being cut under the Senate budget resolution. To the contrary, under the President's plan, VA medical care is cut by $780 million by the year 2000. That is a cut under his 1995 budget numbers. Mr. President, as long as we are talking about promises made and promises kept, I think it is important for us to reflect a little bit on the promises made in the last campaign for President. President Clinton, of course, promised to give us a balanced budget. He said he would submit a balanced budget. He bragged in his first year about submitting a budget that would get us to balance. This last budget, the one we just rejected by an overwhelming 99-0 margin, of course, would not get us to a balanced budget. As a matter of fact, it has deficits for 5 years, averaging $200 billion a year, adding $1 trillion to the national debt of this country. So, Mr. President, in terms of promises made and promises kept, certainly the President has not kept a promise that he has made to help us get to a balanced budget. Insofar as the Democrats are concerned, many of them opposed the balanced budget amendment when it was debated on this floor, arguing that they did not need a constitutional constraint, they could do it without a requirement. Yet, today, we find that there is no Democrat alternative pending before us; none has been offered. The only one coming from a Democrat--the President--was opposed by all Democrat Senators in this Chamber just a few hours ago. So while our Democratic friends are very good about suggesting problems with the approach we have taken, it is all negative, it is all criticism. There is no constructive suggestion as to how we can achieve a balanced budget. So I suggest when we are talking about promises made and promises kept, it is the Republicans--first in the House last night and in the Senate this week--who by Wednesday of next week will have kept the promises we made in the last election--promises made and promises kept. That will be a good test for the voters next time we have an election. Who promised to balance the budget and who is keeping their promise? I submit, Mr. President, that the voters will decide it has been the Republicans that have kept the promises that they made. A few minutes ago we had on the floor of the Senate a chart, which was the basis for the comments of the Senator from New Jersey, and the chart had the title, ``Whose Side Are You On?'' Much of the debate of the Senator from New Jersey at that time focused on this division of our country, the winners and the losers in this entire debate. It was typical of the politics of division, which are, frankly, the politics of losers, the politics of fear, the politics of a zero-sum game, of pitting one side against the other, pitting part of our society against another part of our society. It is the us-against-them game, the rich versus the poor, the old versus the young. It is a zero- sum game, as I say. They cannot conceive of any situation in which there are not winners and losers. In their view, if we balance the budget, there will be winners and there will be losers. I submit, Mr. President, that if we balance the budget, as the Republicans promise to do and as our budget says we will do, we will all be winners. Every American will be a winner under that scenario. And the fear that is being preached on the other side of the aisle here, that somehow there will be losers, will be found to be incorrect. That for every winner there must be a loser is wrong historically, and it will be wrong under this budget. The amendment that is on the floor right now attacks tax cuts for the rich. As the Senator from Oregon pointed out a while ago, there are no tax cuts for the rich in the Senate proposal. There are none. What the amendment that is on the floor proposes is to take a sum of money--$100 billion--and spend that money, even though it has not been created yet. This is what we hope can be achieved as a result of achieving balance in the budget by the year 2002, as a result of reduced interest rates. And so because there is the potential that we will have saved that much money, Democrats are already suggesting to us in the amendment pending on the floor ways to spend that money. They will not agree with us on the budget to achieve that reserve or that windfall. They will not vote for it. But they will sure as heck find a way to spend it. That is what characterizes this entire debate. First, they say, no, we do not need a balanced budget amendment; we can do it on our own. Then they say, no, we do not have any idea how we can do it on our own and we will not support yours, but we would like to spend what you save. That is the amendment pending before us and the amendment we should defeat. The sponsors of this amendment attack our budget as ``hurting ordinary Americans.'' That was an exact quotation of the Senator from New Jersey. It is the failure to act that will hurt ordinary Americans. But, Mr. President, I would like to really phrase it in a different way. Too many Democrats want to protect ordinary Americans. They would like to keep them dependent on the Government. Most Republicans disagree. Frankly, we do not think there is such a thing as an ordinary American. We think all Americans are extraordinary, and that given the opportunity, they can all improve their own lives and the lives of their families. And that is what we are trying to do by balancing the budget. We are trying to provide that opportunity for them so that all of the extraordinary Americans in this country can provide for themselves without having to rely upon a Federal Government that taxes them and regulates them to death. We believe in opportunity, not dependency. We believe that almost all Americans can achieve more for themselves and their families if they have opportunity. But they will not have that opportunity if we bankrupt this country, and that is what will happen if we do not balance the budget. That is what will happen if we do not adopt the budget before us that will achieve balance by the year 2002. Balancing the budget is about our future, about our children's future. It is about reducing the tax burden on our families, about allowing the Government to spend money on something other than interest on the debt, about reducing interest rates. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, let me cite some statistics from the Joint Economic Committee. According to the committee, the deficit adds a 2-percent surtax on all interest rates; 2 percent more on car loans, student loans, credit cards, and on mortgages. Two percent on a $75,000 30-year mortgage, for example, adds up to $37,440 over the life of the loan. That is what not balancing the budget is costing average Americans. If current patterns continue, we will be spending $5.2 trillion on interest payments over the next 15 years. That is money we cannot spend on other things like health care, housing, nutrition assistance for the poor, veterans care, or whatever. By 1997, gross interest--$300 billion annually--will amount to about as much as we will spend on income security programs, the welfare, housing, nutrition, AFDC, SSI, EITC, food stamps, education and training, employment and social services, all of these things combined. But eliminating the deficit will result in lower interest rates, which will, in turn, lead to the creation of an estimated 4.25 million jobs over the next 10 years, increased per capita incomes by over 16 percent, and will generate more revenue for Federal and State and local treasuries as a result of increased economic activities. So by balancing the budget, we will be assuring our children a brighter future. In the last election, I was very troubled by the fact that many people believed--and surveys confirmed this --that the next generation, our children's generation, will not have as much opportunity as we have had. about changing the direction in our country so that we could guarantee that our children and grandchildren would have the same opportunity that we have had to make a better living for themselves. The national debt now amounts to about $4.8 trillion. That is about $18,500 for every man, woman, and child in the country, about $74,000 of debt for the average family of four. Even if we balance the budget at this very moment, the average American family would be stuck with a bill of $74,000, an amount that rivals the size of the mortgage on a home. In order to pay just the interest on that debt each year, the average family would have to pay more than $5,000 annually in taxes. That is $430 a month just in interest payments, and that assumes that Congress does not run any more budget deficits starting this very moment. Fortunately, this budget resolution will eliminate the deficits by the year 2002. That compares with President Clinton's budget which would have given us $200 billion deficits every year for the foreseeable future. Just to put this in perspective, for every year in which the Federal Government runs a $200 billion deficit, the average young person will pay an additional $5,000 in taxes over his or her lifetime. The $1 trillion in new debt that President Clinton proposed in his 5-year budget plan represents an additional $25,000 in taxes, an additional $25,000 for every young man and woman. So you see, Mr. President, why it is so important that we pass this budget and balance the budget. It is for the future of our country. What will happen if we do not do it? That is the question. Our colleagues on the other side, too many of them, ask what will happen if we do. Somebody might be a loser, but everybody in this country will be losers if we do not balance the budget. The burden of the national debt does not just show up in people's tax bills. It also adds a surtax in interest, as I said. The estimate is that the debt surtax adds about 2 percent to those interest rates. By balancing the budget, we can help eliminate that surtax and make a home purchase more affordable, make it easier for families to send their children to college and to do all the other things we want our families to do. I want to commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for his work in putting together this budget resolution, and all the members of the Budget Committee. It was not easy. Special interests, their allies at the White House and others are already out trying to destroy it. The naysayers have not gotten the message the American people sent loudly and clearly in the last election that they want less spending, less Government and more freedom. The critics have nothing to offer but fear. Their argument is to scare everybody about what will happen if we reduce spending. They do not want us to cut spending. They are not even satisfied with some limitation on the growth in spending. All they know is more spending, higher taxes and bigger Government. It is a prescription for economic disaster. The red ink has to stop. Look where Medicare is headed. The Medicare board of trustees say if nothing is done, the trust funds will begin losing money in 1997 and go bankrupt by the year 2002. Mr. President, I will have more to say about this Medicare issue later. The Senator from Tennessee, who spoke eloquently on this issue and who is himself a physician, has made it very clear in his remarks that we have to solve this problem of the Medicare trust, and if we do not, every American will suffer. We also have the question of tax cuts before us, but they are not in this budget resolution. I will support the Gramm amendment which will provide tax cuts because we believe that not only should American families have more to spend of the money they have worked hard to earn, but that tax cuts can actually assist us in generating more revenues to the Treasury and providing more jobs and in stimulating the economy. Mr. President, I am going to have more to say about those things later. I would just like to close with this point. For me, there are three very personal reasons to vote for this balanced budget resolution. Their names are Frances, Christopher, and Jonathan. Those are my three grandchildren. Born just a week ago today, Jonathan already owns a share of the debt, $18,500 and growing. The last thing any of us wants is to leave our grandchildren a lower standard of living, and yet that is precisely what will occur if we do not balance the budget. The last thing we want to leave our grandchildren and children is the obligation to pay the large and growing debt that we have accumulated to pay for things that we wanted, but that is exactly what will happen if we do not get the Federal budget under control. So I urge my colleagues not only to oppose the amendment which is before us but to support the budget resolution from the Budget Committee, because it offers us the way to a brighter future for ourselves, for our generation, for our children and, as I say, for those grandchildren that we care so very much about. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this year's National Law Enforcement memorial service had great meaning and was filled with sadness for the citizens of Arizona. Over the past year, four Arizona law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty. The seventh annual memorial service and candlelight vigil held here in Washington, DC, this week provided an opportunity to remember these dedicated officers and the contributions they made to the people of Arizona. I had the privilege of visiting with two of the families of these men this week. The loss they have experienced is still very painful for them. But, they know that the death of their loved ones was not in vain. They died to ensure that others could live--safely. These men provide an example of the dedicated service that all other law enforcement officers in Arizona should strive to achieve. Each of them made a unique contribution to Arizona. They all played a significant role in working toward a safer and stronger State and Nation. Mesa Police Officer Steven Paul Pollard died on November 27, 1994, when he was struck by a car and killed while conducting a DUI traffic stop in the emergency lane of U.S. 60 in Mesa. As Steve stood by the driver's door of his vehicle, a motorist traveling eastbound apparently fell asleep and drove his vehicle off the roadway striking Steve and the police vehicle. He died instantly. Steve was born July 5, 1968, in Phoenix to Steven and Ida Garcia. He went to Starlight Elementary, Estrella Junior High, and Trevor Brown High School. He graduated in 1986. Steve had worked for the department of corrections before joining the Mesa Police Department. That was the career he wanted all of his life, and he died doing the job he always dreamed of doing. Steve is remembered as man who would go beyond the call of duty to help others. No job was ever too big or too small for Steve. Steve is survived by his mother and father, Richard and Ida Pollard; is brother and sister, Ruben and Angie; and his wife and daughter, Kimber and Celine. Wildlife Manager Estevan Escobedo, who had been with the Arizona Game and Fish Department for 9 years, was killed in a fiery helicopter crash near Coolidge Dam on January 4, 1994. He and three other officials, who survived the crash, were on a routine assignment to count javelina in a rugged canyon near Winkelman. The area was part of Estevan's district, based in Globe. Estevan was the first law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty in 1994. It was the first aircraft accident involving a fatality for the department since 1980. Estevan graduated from Westwood High School and Arizona State University. Away from his duties as a wildlife manager, Estevan participated in rodeo events such as calf roping. He was a partner, confidant, and adopted brother to his rodeo buddies. Estevan is survived by his mother and a twin brother. He is remembered as a carefree, joyous bother, son, and friend, equipped with a playful sense of humor and a sense of duty that led him to give lovingly of his time and energy. Those who knew him say that Estevan had a smile that will last forever in the memories of those whose lives were touched by him. Sergeant Patrick (Pat) Riley died on March 11, 1994. He was struck by a truck while directing traffic at a construction site. He died approximately 2 hours later. Pat joined the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office as a detention officer in 1983. A year later, he applied for and was accepted as a deputy sheriff. He spent 4 years in various positions as a deputy, ranging from a beat deputy to detective, culminating his assignment to major felonies as a homicide detective. During this period, he was nominated for the ``Deputy of the Year'' commendation in 1990. He received the B.P.O.E. ``Americanism Award'' in 1991, which was presented by Gov. Rose Mofford. Pat was promoted to sergeant in September 1992 and served in assignments at the general investigations division, detectives, and in patrol. He also received the highly coveted ``Distinguished Service Award'' in 1994. Pat was one of the lead investigators in the Temple homicide case, in which eight Buddhist monks and two apprentices were murdered. Pat married Laurie Davis in February 1987. After a courtship of love, he leaves behind his wife and no children. Sergeant Patrick Devon Thompson died on September 2, 1994. While on duty, Sergeant Thompson lost control of his police vehicle, collided with an oncoming car, and died instantly. Sergeant Thompson served with the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office since 1978. He is remembered by colleagues as honest, loyal, reliable, caring, and trustworthy. He was also very generous with his time, especially with the youth of Santa Cruz County. They respected and admired him. He was near death in 1991, but had a tremendous will to live, and he survived. A second chance can be a wonderful gift, and Pat realized this and approached his life with a new vigor, a new determination. His last 3 years were dedicated to undertaking new challenges and to helping children, especially through the D.A.R.E. Program. Pat encouraged the D.A.R.E. kids to live a clean and healthy life. Sergeant Thompson is survived by his mother, wife, sons, and daughters. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to remember Sergeants Thompson and Riley, Officer Pollard, and Wildlife Manager Escobedo. They served their organizations with distinction and with honor. We will never forget their sacrifice; we will always remember their spirit.