Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, the leader has advised that there will be a rollcall vote on the Oklahoma City resolution at 12 noon tomorrow. Following the conclusion of the policy luncheons at product liability bill, H.R. 956.

Mr. KYL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wanted to comment on two things, one which has just occurred and one which is about to occur, I hope. We know that last night the House of Representatives passed historic tax relief for the American people. I want to address that for a moment. Second, we know there have been discussions between the majority and minority leader on an attempt to reach an agreement on a rescissions package which we could conclude before the Easter recess. Mr. President, the House of Representatives adopted a rescissions package of about $17 billion and the Senate has been working on a package somewhat less than that. It is our hope between the majority and minority we can come to an agreement on a package which would represent our effort to meet the House, if not precisely their figure, at least something close to it so that as the House and Senate take the recess during the Eastertime, our constituents back home would know that both the House and Senate were serious about saving money. Mr. President, during the last campaign, as I was running for this office, people asked me what it would take to balance the budget? I said it is a three-step process. The first thing we can do is immediately try to save some of the money that the Congress has already appropriated. We know that every year there is money appropriated that really cannot be spent very effectively. If we could make a head start on balancing the budget by just saving some of that money for next year, it would demonstrate our commitment to a long-term goal of balancing the budget. That is what the rescission package is about. I will come back to that in a moment. The second step, of course, is the decisions that we make throughout the year for that year's budget. The third step, of course, is the long-term balancing of the budget process which I have contended can only be done effectively through the adoption of the balanced budget amendment, because without the discipline of the constitutional requirement to balance the budget I have always felt it doubtful Congress would actually develop the willpower and the commitment to see that difficult project through. Those are really the three steps that I articulate. In the second step, what I had said was each month throughout the legislative year we deal with legislation that spends money. We can make the conscious decision not to spend as much, to limit Federal spending. When it comes time to appropriate the funds, we can set priorities and we can end passing appropriations bills that limit the growth in Federal spending. Mr. President, we have heard the figures that if we adopt a tax relief plan for the American people we can still balance the Federal budget by the year 2002 if we limit growth in Federal spending to 2 percent a year. We are not talking about draconian cuts, but talking about limiting the growth in spending. So the first step is to try to save money that we do not have to spend next year through a rescissions bill. The second step is to make the tough additions each week, each month, as this year goes by, as we pass the appropriations bills, to spend less money than we had anticipated spending. If we do that each year for 7 years, we will have achieved a balanced budget by the year 2002, without the need for a constitutional amendment. We know that would provide more discipline, would give the Congress a better ability to control spending, but we will deal with the issue of the constitutional amendment later this year and probably next year. Let me go back to the first of those three steps, the rescission package, because that is what has been before the Senate for the past week. The idea of rescissions--not a term that the American people would necessarily relate to--but the idea of rescissions is to simply not spend money that we counted on spending, because we really do not have to spend it. Here is an example: We appropriate money to the General Services Administration to build a building. We say it will cost $2 million, so here is the money for it. GSA lets out the bids but none of the companies that would bid on it gives the GSA a bid they want to accept. The bids do not supply the right kind of construction or architect or something. So the GSA does not let the bids for the contract, so the contract is delayed a year. That $2 million which has been appropriated for next year, really, cannot efficiently be spent next year. The construction project on which it was supposed to be spent cannot be built. Why should we force the GSA to spend that money on something? We can rescind the money. We can call that money back, and save it for this year, and either decide to apply it to deficit reduction or apply it to some other expenditure for next year. There are a lot of different programs that we have been talking about rescinding money in. The net result has been an agreement that somewhere between $13 or $14 billion and $17 billion, we can save the American people--taxpayers--that much money in this coming fiscal year because we really do not need to spend that money even though the money has been authorized to be spent. Now we have had some disagreements in the Senate about whether we should agree to the House level of $17 billion. There has been some disagreement between the Democrats and Republicans as to where to save that money. I am hopeful that within a few minutes the majority and the minority leader will announce an agreement which represents not totally a Republican view or a Democratic view but a view that both share, that we need to save as much money as possible. While it will not get to the $17 billion level that the House of Representatives has adopted, it will be close to that. It will be in the range of $16 billion, I hope, and that we will then be able to quickly adopt that rescissions package, go into conference with the House so that as soon as we return from the Easter recess we can send to the President savings of between $16 and $17 billion. Some people have said, why are we taking time to deal with that problem when we have a much bigger problem of developing a budget of over $1 trillion? Beginning the process of reducing Federal spending over a period of 7 years to reach a balanced budget, perhaps in the order of magnitude of $1 trillion over the 7-year period. What is $17 billion? Well, we have all quoted Everett Dirksen, who use to speak in this Chamber, and who made famous ``A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon you are talking real money.'' To the American people, $17 billion is a lot of money, and it is a very good downpayment on the savings that we have to make in the future. Because of the consternation I have seen expressed on the floor here about some of the savings even within the $17 billion package, it makes it clear to me that it will be a very hard process if we cannot agree to some of the things that are in the $16 or $17 billion package, how will we agree to something 10 times greater than that or 100 times greater than that? Clearly, we have to start from the bottom up. Each program has to be prioritized, and we have to try and find savings everywhere we can. In each line of that Federal budget, there is something to be saved. When we add it all up, it adds up to big dollars. If we only look to the big programs, then we are forced to look at things like Social Security and Medicare and defense. Frankly, most Senators understand that there is much about those programs which precludes the Senate from making the huge savings that would have to be made there if we ignore the smaller programs. It is important to start at a level of rescissions. I am very, very hopeful that within a few minutes our leadership will indicate an agreement on a adopt, and begin this process of balancing the Federal budget. Just one more comment, since I see the Senator from Alaska is here and wishes to speak. I wanted to comment on what the House of Representatives did last night. It was historic, Mr. President. Never in the history of the country has a body as the House of Representatives in less than 100 days adopted the sweeping legislation that the House of Representatives has now adopted. Nine out of the 10 points in the Republican Contract With America were adopted, concluding last night with the historic $180 billion-plus tax cut for the American people. A tax cut which guarantees not to cost in terms of the deficit but has added to the deficit reduction planning. In other words, the House committed to reducing the Federal budget deficit and achieving a balanced budget by the year 2002, and in addition, providing for $180 billion in tax cuts for the American people. This is in keeping with the commitment that many made in the last election to our constituents and to the desires of the American people expressed to Members in the last election. I want to commend the House of Representatives and all of the people there who thought it important enough not only to express the intention to balance the budget but also to allow American families to keep more of what they earn and to allow American businesses to generate the capital, to create the jobs to employ the people, to create the kind of employment that we know is necessary to bring people out of poverty and create a high standard of living for working Americans, for all of middle America. This is an important commitment that needed to be kept. And it is up to the Senate, after we return from the Easter recess, to follow through on our part of that commitment. Our tax cut program may not be precisely what the House program was. It might be a little bit less, in terms of money. We know that there is a little bit different point of view here. I, for one, would be happy to adopt every penny of the tax cuts adopted by the House of Representatives. To me, every one of them is justified and I will be urging that we do that here on the Senate floor. But even if it is not exactly identical, I think we can be proud and we can go back to the American people and say we kept our promises to you, we kept our commitment, if we are able to adopt a program of tax relief that is close to what the House adopted last night. I think it is important for us in the Senate to say to our colleagues in the House, ``Job well done. You did what you promised you would do. You set the stage for us to come in behind you and to finish the job and we are committed to doing that when we return from this Easter recess.'' I think, as we prepare to go back and spend time with our constituents, much has been achieved. We should be prepared to talk about that. But most important--most important we should be prepared to listen to our constituents when we go home now, to listen for 3 weeks to what they have to tell us. Have we been doing the right thing? Do you want us to continue on this path? My guess is, when we come back, we will be energized with the spirit of our constituents telling us to carry on, keep on with that fight, balance the Federal budget, save this money in rescissions and provide tax relief for American families. I think that will be their message to us. I cannot wait to get back and hear it. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce the Voter Turnout Enhancement Study [VoTES] Commission Act, a bill to establish a temporary Commission to consider whether the deadline for filing Federal income tax returns should be changed to the date on which Federal elections are held. Our constituents demonstrated last fall that they want real change. I can't think of anything that would change the Congress more than to move tax day to election day so the American people could vote as they pay. It would not only enhance voter turnout rates, but also give the American people an opportunity to vote at the same time they pay their taxes, thus holding politicians accountable to the people on the day they are most focused on the cost of their Government. While just about every day of the year is celebrated by special interest groups around the country for the Government largesse they receive, the taxpayers--the silent majority--have only one day of the year to focus on what that largesse means to them--how much it costs them--and that is tax day. The Voter Turnout Enhancement Study [VoTES] Commission Act would provide for a thoughtful and thorough analysis of the date change, its potential impact on voter turnout, as well as any economic impact it might have. The bill explicitly requires that an independent Commission conduct a cost-benefit analysis--a requirement that Congress would be wise to impose routinely on legislative initiatives to separate good ideas from the bad, and save taxpayers a lot of money in the process. A number of other cost-limiting provisions have been included to protect taxpayers' interests. I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the Sexual Violence Prevention and Victims Rights Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I think my colleague from Wyoming makes an excellent point that I would like to speak to, and that is the issue of the balanced budget, of getting rid of our Federal budget deficit and balancing the budget has more than an economic dimension to it. It is really a matter of the future of our children and grandchildren, it is a matter of right and wrong and what we ought to be doing as a society. Bill Bennett, who is the former Secretary of Education, testified before the Senate Budget Committee recently, and he said this: 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, that, as much as the economic consequences of our lack of fiscal discipline, is what this debate about balancing the Federal budget is all about. The bigger the Government gets, the more taxes it needs. The more revenue it takes, the less American families are able to provide for themselves, and that brings dependency on the Government. And the cycle continues: More spending, more taxes, a weaker economy, and ultimately more dependency on the Government. The net result of that is a change in the personality of America, literally. Our welfare state has created a dependency by the people who have not found a way to get off welfare because of the kinds of incentives that have been built into the program over the years. One of the things that the Republicans in the House and the Senate are trying to do is to change the welfare state to end this cycle of dependency. It is more than an economic matter. We are literally trying to give people a hand up rather than a handout to end the dependency, to enable them to provide for themselves. The great debate in the House of Representatives in the next couple of days is whether we can modestly reduce some taxes at the same time that we are balancing the Federal budget. Of course, the answer is yes. If we have the discipline, we can both get to a balanced budget in 7 years and make some modest changes in the Tax Code. Here is the reason why we need to do it. The chart behind us shows in the bars the level of Federal spending, and it shows a green line running in about 19, 19.5 percent of the gross national product which represents revenues from 1970 through the year 2030. We have had several tax rate increases during that period of time. Has it produced more revenue? No. The economy adjusts. When tax rates go up, people adjust their behavior accordingly. Likewise, when we have reduced taxes, has it reduced revenues to the Federal Treasury? No. As a percent of the gross national product, as you can see on that green line, revenues remain constant. Now that is in a growing economy. So despite the fact that the economy is growing larger, revenues to the Treasury are keeping up when you reduce taxes, and that is one of the reasons that we want to reduce the taxes, both on capital gains so that people can sell assets that they have been holding but do not want to pay 28 percent tax on the profit they make on that--profit which is largely generated by inflation, by the way, so it is not real profit at all--and why we are interested in the $500 tax credit for children. That helps to restore the balance in who does the spending. One of our colleagues was here yesterday talking about cuts in education, and I made the point that we are not talking about cuts in spending on education. What we are talking about is who does the spending. Who do you think can do a better job of making decisions on how to spend money on our children, a Federal bureaucrat in Washington or the family of that child? We say leave the money with the family that earned it. They will make smarter decisions about what to spend on that child. So, Mr. President, my point is this: There is more to this than just the pure economics of it, than the dollars and cents of it. That is critical. It is very important. But there is more to it than that. It is fundamentally what our society is all about. We are trying to reduce the power, the authority, the intrusiveness of the Federal Government into our lives. We are trying to restore power to the States and local governments and to the families. One way we do that is by giving the Federal Government less money to spend and by limiting the growth in that spending to the revenues that we take in. The other way we do it is by not just limiting how much money the Federal Government takes in, but by actually reducing it through selected tax cuts. I think it is very important, as the House of Representatives will do in the next 3 days, as they will pass these reductions in taxes, it is very important for the U.S. Senate to follow suit, to follow what the House of Representatives does. We do not necessarily have to cut exactly the same taxes and the same amount. But it is important that we begin to put this Government on a diet, and the way to do that is begin to ratchet down the amount of money Nation, from the families of our Nation, and leave that money with them to make the decisions on how best to spend it. Mr. President, Members of the freshman Republican class are going to be conducting these conversations every week throughout this entire year, I suspect even beyond that, to try to make the point that we just heard from the voters out there, we heard what was on their minds. We listened, and I am still hearing the same thing: They want us to reduce the power and the size and the expense of the Federal Government. And we freshmen Republicans are committed to that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me take a couple moments, first of all, to address some of the comments of my colleague from New Mexico, because I think the debate is fairly framed by some of the things which he had to say. It does demonstrate the difference in approach that we take to this matter of reducing the Federal spending and trying to find ways to rescind spending from last year which is what the Dole amendment is all about. The Senator from New Mexico makes a primary point that education funding should not be further cut. I would like to make two points with respect to this. The first is, as far as I am concerned, it is not a matter of cutting spending. It is a question of who does the spending. Our idea here is that the Federal Government should do less of the spending and that the families of America should get to do more of the spending. As a result, when we talk about a $500 tax credit for children, for example, what we are saying is, who would you rather have spend the money on your children? The Federal Government or the family who is responsible for their care? We would rather give the family the $500 per child and let them decide whether they are going to enroll their child in a special education program, buy a new computer, get some books or in whatever way they feel it best to spend that money for their children's education--to do that, rather than to assume that the Federal Government can put better use to that money than can the families of America. That is the theory for our approach to this question of Federal spending. Second, to get right to the point of the rescission package that is before us, the Dole amendment, says that we should add about $1.3 billion in rescissions, in other words in cuts to the package that has been put before the body from the Appropriations Committee. This would conform, or get close to conforming, the Senate package of rescissions with the House package, at roughly $16 or $17 billion. Let us talk about how it might affect education. One of the items we would like to rescind more of the money on is the AmeriCorps Program that the Senator from Missouri was talking about a moment ago. The AmeriCorps program in the House rescinds, or has rescinded in it, about $416 million to a level of $158 million, close to $159 million, for next fiscal year. The Dole amendment would conform the Senate position to the House position. Right now, the Senate position is to only rescind half that money. How does the AmeriCorps program affect education in our country? Here is one way. The AmeriCorps Program spends as much money on one person, one so-called volunteer--who, of course, as we know is not a volunteer at all but is paid for work, $20,000 to $30,000 a year, $40,000 in Alaska--as could be spent to fund eight Pell grants for needy students to come to school. As we know, the Pell Grant Program is based on need; it goes to needy students. So we could send eight needy students to college for what we are spending today on one volunteer in the AmeriCorps Program. This chart makes the point. At this level here, you have the 3.9 million young people in America who are volunteers today, not being paid a penny for their volunteer service, and here you have the maximum of 20,000 young Americans who will participate in the AmeriCorps Program. What is the cost? Bear in mind, these almost 4 million people get paid nothing. These are the youngsters, the youth of our country, young men and women, teenagers and young people who are doing volunteer work who are between the ages of 16 and 24, as compared to these 20,000. What is it costing? This makes the point about the Pell grants, as I said. Here are the number of people, Pell grant recipients, who could be funded with the money for one AmeriCorps volunteer in the State of Alaska. Incidentally, we might ask the question, why does it cost over $40,000 a year for an AmeriCorps volunteer in Alaska, but we will leave that for another day, perhaps. The point is, with this Alaska volunteer, if we rescinded the money for that AmeriCorps volunteer, we could send over 28 needy young Americans to college next year. That is what education is all about. So when some of our colleagues say we need to pay more attention to education, I say you bet we should, in two respects: First, we should not waste it on programs that really do not help the needy. We should put it where it does the most good. That means going along with our package of rescissions here with respect to AmeriCorps. Second, instead of talking about cutting education funding, we ought to talk about who actually does the funding. Who does the spending? It ought to be the families of America, not the U.S. Government. I was curious about the chart that was behind the Senator from New Mexico, and I gather has been used by some of the Senators on that side of the aisle. The whole point of the chart is who gains and who loses, and that is the way a lot of liberals look at the American Government. It is a zero sum game. We need to take from them so we will have something over here. It is never taught that John F. Kennedy used to engage in trying to expand the pie. Remember what he said, ``A rising tide lifts all boats.'' His point in saying that, by the way, was we needed to have a capital gains cut for corporations. It does not sound like the Democratic rhetoric that we hear today. But this was a Democrat all better off, and you cannot be employed if there is no employer, and employers need money to pay for people, to pay for their employees. So he understood that making everybody better off is the name of the game, not arguing over the size of the existing pie. That is what the chart that the Senator from New Mexico was standing next to basically tries to portray--who gains and who loses. Our idea is that is the politics of envy. As I said, it is a zero sum game. Our general point should be to reduce Federal spending generally so there is more left over for the American family to spend so there is more left over for savings and for investment, for growth in the American economy so that our children and grandchildren will have a better future.

Mr. KYL. Let us just sum it up this way, because there are a whole list of programs that are the subject of the rescission in the amendment of the Senator from Kansas, the distinguished majority leader. The majority leader's amendment--what we will be voting on tomorrow-- is to add some rescissions, some additional reductions in spending to programs like AmeriCorps, as we pointed out, foreign operations, the foreign aid program that the Senator from Missouri talked about, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that the Senator from Pennsylvania has talked about, the Internal Revenue Service--there are a whole variety of them. My colleague from Arizona, John McCain, had suggested about $337 million in cuts that the President himself requested and that this body has not seen fit to include in its rescissions package. Let me conclude with this. It is not as if we are trying to do something rather odd here in suggesting a little more in the way of rescissions. On the AmeriCorps Program that we were talking about, what was the vote in the House of Representatives for rescinding twice as much as the Senate is proposing to rescind? Was that a partisan vote? Democrat and Republican? The vote was on March 15, 382 to 23. This is a bipartisan understanding of what we need to do to get our budget deficit under control here. So, by a vote of 382 to 23, the House of Representatives voted to rescind about $416 million from AmeriCorps. It seems to me that the Senate could do just as well. So I hope that our colleagues will support the Dole substitute when it comes to a vote, and I appreciate the Senator from Missouri yielding time.

Mr. KYL. Let me sum up. If the Senator from North Carolina has more to talk about here, that will be fine. Otherwise, let me take a minute to sum up because I know the Senator from Pennsylvania has something to say about this, as well.

Mr. KYL. I think the Senator from North Carolina makes an excellent point there. Mr. President, might I inquire how much time remains on this side, for the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. KYL. I say to my colleague from North Carolina, that is the same question I had been asking all last week when various people said to me, ``My goodness, you are cutting something out of this and cutting something out of that?'' I said, ``This is just the beginning. If you do not have the fortitude to do this, how are you ever going to balance the budget?'' By the way, these were the same people who were against the balanced budget amendment on the basis we were elected to make the tough decisions. Looks like they are running for the woods now.

Mr. KYL. I will be delighted to yield.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to speak in strong support of the amendment of the majority leader which will have the effect of restoring $1.3 billion in disaster assistance for additional spending from last year's budget in the form of rescissions, including, for example, $337 million in budget cuts that were requested by President Clinton but are not in the rescission package as it exists right now. It further rescinds several other programs to levels near to or the same as the House rescission package. For example, as the majority leader says, it cuts $100 million from the IRS bureaucracy, and makes other changes. The specific areas in which the rescissions are increased are the AmeriCorps Program, which I will speak to in a moment, the IRS, as I mentioned, some foreign operations matters, which you will be addressing, Mr. President, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--as I said, $337 million in cuts that were requested by President Clinton-- the Legal Services Corporation and a program called youth bill, and some others. The total, as the majority leader said, is over $1.3 billion, close to $1.4 billion. The majority leader has indicated an interest in having a time agreement and, as a result of that, I think we will begin by being relatively brief on a few of these items. But if it is the desire of those in the minority to debate this at length, then we will be prepared to do that. It is our hope that the majority leader's will is reflected in an agreement by the minority as well. So let me begin this debate by focusing on the first item on this particular amendment, and that is the AmeriCorps Program, the so-called voluntarism program in this country, which is not voluntarism at all but rather has the Federal Government taking taxpayer dollars to pay people to work as volunteers. Obviously, that is an oxymoron. You are not a volunteer if you are being paid for your volunteer activity by the U.S. Government. But that is the nature of this program, and that is obviously one thing that is wrong with it. I think perhaps one of the most important things I will say here, Mr. President, is as follows: This amendment is similar to the amendment that the House passed by a vote of 382 to 23. So the House made the degree of rescissions that we are talking about in this amendment by the overwhelming majority of 382 to 23. If the Senate cannot reflect that significant consensus of the House of Representatives in a similar number, then I think those who are watching us today may wonder what this body can do. Clearly, we can reflect the same consensus that was generated from the House of Representatives. What this would mean in dollars is that AmeriCorps funding for fiscal year 1995 would total almost $159 million. During a time of severe budget constraints, we are asking of our programs that are currently funded at one level, can those programs be reduced in their funding to reflect the fiscal position that the United States is in right now? We cannot afford all of these programs, at least to the degree they are being funded. As a brandnew program, AmeriCorps cost American taxpayers $367 million last year. Now the President wants to increase the cost to over $800 million for 1996. What we are suggesting is, we do not shut the program down, but we reduce the funding of the program to the same level that the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to fund. AmeriCorps is not an effective jobs or education program. We submit that it will not increase voluntarism in our country. Mr. President, students of history will recall that one of the most profound observers of the American scene, as this country was getting going in the early 1800's, was a French historian by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville. Alexis de Tocqueville came to this country to see what made it so dynamic, why we were seeming to do so well just 50 years after our Revolution, and what experience he could take back to France to tell his fellow citizens how they might improve their society as Americans seemed to be doing. One of his chief findings was that Americans banded together in all sorts of voluntary arrangements to help each other in their local communities. They banded together in groups with names and just as neighbors helping neighbors--to put up a barn, to help a family, to work in a community, to work in the churches or the synagogues. In one way or another, he observed, Americans volunteered to help each other, and that was one of the significant differences between America and the old Europe from which he came. In fact, he reflected on this by saying, ``America is great because America is good.'' And if America shall ever cease to be good, America will cease to be great. One of those elements of goodness to which he was referring was this dynamic concept of voluntarism that characterized the American society. That voluntarism has continued until this day. But I submit that the AmeriCorps Program--U.S. Government paid volunteers--undermines the concept of voluntarism, as Alexis de Tocqueville had observed. Groups such as the Salvation Army, Arizona Clean and Beautiful Project, the Crime Victim Foundation, St. Mary's and Andre House food bank, and others all around this country, commit millions of hours to voluntarism every year. Today, Americans, age 18 and up, volunteer, without pay, almost 20 billion hours of their time. That is a 50-percent increase in hours since 1981. Turning voluntarism into a wide-scale public job program, I submit, will undermine public and private philanthropy. It stands the concept of voluntarism on its head. A final point, Mr. President. It is not just that it undermines voluntarism, and that it is costly. But it is taking money away from other programs which really could be of assistance to America's youth. The AmeriCorps project is not based on need, as you know. It does not promote voluntarism based upon the need of the people who participate in it. 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, and in some localities, other benefits. For the average $20,000 to $30,000 cost per year, per student in the AmeriCorps Program, eight needy students could receive Pell grants at $2,400 apiece. So we could educate eight needy students in this country for the same thing that it costs us to pay for one ``volunteer'' under the AmeriCorps Program. This $20,000 stipend is worth more than the individual income of nearly 40 million working Americans. So, Mr. President, it seems to us that given the fact that it does not promote real voluntarism; that it is costing a tremendous amount of money; that the House voted overwhelmingly to reduce the funding to the level that we are proposing here; that it takes money away from programs which could really assist needy students who need funding to continue their education, we should adopt the amendment of the majority leader, thus reducing the amount of funding for the AmeriCorps Program. I am going to yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania in a moment. I have one final point here. Over 2,800 volunteers--20 percent of the 20,000 AmeriCorps volunteers--are assigned to Federal agencies. This is a volunteer program designed to help people in local communities, but 20 percent of these people are assigned to the Department of Agriculture, Department of the 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 almost a million dollars. This is not voluntarism, Mr. President. This is just one of the programs that we would reduce the spending for in order to achieve the $1.3 billion-plus in rescissions that make up the amendment of the majority leader. At this time, let me yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania to further discuss this point.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 434, which I will advise my colleagues I do not intend to call up, but in order to have a time agreement on this amendment which will enable us to discuss it for a period of a half an hour we have agreed not to call for a vote at the conclusion of the discussion. It is too bad, Mr. President, because to some extent it seems we are on the horns of a dilemma when we seek to add more rescissions to the list of those that have been recommended by the committee. This amendment, No. 434, would conform the rescission of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the so-called LIHEAP, to that of the House of Representatives. Some of my colleagues, on the one hand, said we cannot afford to have a vote on this and win it because, if we do, the President will then veto the bill and we will not get any rescissions; it will not be $17 billion; it will not be $13 billion; it will not be anything. And other colleagues say we cannot afford to have a vote on this amendment because if we do and it is defeated, then we will not be able to argue in the conference that we should rescind more money because the amendment will have been defeated on the floor of the Senate. I think it is important, however, that these issues be discussed because during the debate on the balanced budget amendment which occurred for over 5 weeks we heard over and over again from opponents of the balanced budget amendment that we did not need a constitutional requirement to force us to balance the budget. We were elected to make the hard decisions, but we are not making the hard decisions. This is a hard decision, but in a moment I am going to read some material to my colleagues which I think will demonstrate that it really is not that hard. We can rescind more money from this program. And in a moment I will explain the reasons why. Too often the argument is made, on the one hand, that we were elected to make the hard decisions and then when the hard decisions are placed before us, our colleagues are not ready to make those hard decisions. And so we are going to discuss this for a half an hour right now. We will not have a vote on it, but we will eventually have a vote on it because we are going to have to determine whether it is the House level of rescission or the Senate level of rescission that will prevail. Mr. President, on this I support the House level of rescission. Let us talk just a little bit about what this program is. The Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, provides utility assistance for poor families in America as a result of the energy crisis of the late 1970's and early 1980's. It was initiated in 1981 to temporarily supplement existing cash assistance programs to help low- income individuals pay for what were then escalating home fuel costs resulting from the energy crisis. An interesting thing happened. Since the program's creation, real energy prices have declined to pre-1980 levels and according to the CBO's February 1995 report ``Reducing Deficit Spending and Revenue Options,'' real prices of household fuels have declined 22 percent. So those real low prices mean that it is time to reconsider this program. It is also interesting that in the CBO report 26 States transferred up to 10 percent of their LIHEAP funds during the 1993 period to supplement spending for five other social and community services block grant programs and 10 percent is the maximum that they can transfer under this program. So the transfers indicate that at least some States believe that spending for energy assistance does not have as high a priority as other spending. As I said, it is time to reconsider this program. Now, is this just the position of a conservative Republican from Arizona? No. Let me read to you from the budget of the President of the United States, William Clinton, last year. The President is requesting $730 million. That is half as much as is requested in this year's budget. Here is what the President said: We had to eliminate or refocus many programs including LIHEAP. Why? Well, several factors influenced our decision, he says: 1. LIHEAP began as a response to the severe energy crisis in the early 1970's and early 1980's which caused quantum increases in energy prices. Since then, energy prices and the percentage of income spent by low-income households on home energy decreased substantially. What began as a program-- And I continue to quote here from the President's budget. This is President Clinton's budget requesting a reduction in funds last year. What began as a program focused on easing the energy crisis has evolved into a very narrowly focused income supplement program which provides average benefits of less than $200, does not target well those low-income households with exceptionally high energy costs in relation to income, and which does little to help assisted households achieve independence from the program. I am quoting from President Clinton's budget, indicating why this program should have been cut last year. The administration has made major improvements [he says] in the Nation's basic income supplement programs, increasing the earned income tax credit for the working poor, expanding the Food Stamps Program and reforming the welfare system. These changes reduce the need for peripheral income supplement programs such as LIHEAP. And the President concluded: Considering these factors, we concluded that the time had come to refocus LIHEAP on the energy needs of low-income families and to shift away from income supplementation and dependency. Mr. President, LIHEAP is a very good example of what has happened so often with the Federal budget. A crisis develops at some point in our history which causes us to implement a Federal program which extracts taxpayer dollars from all over the country and focuses it on a limited segment of our population. We vote to do that because at the time it appears to us that there is a group in need and we want to assist them. But over time the original need for that program, the original rationale for it disappears or is substantially reduced. Sometimes people cannot even remember why it was put into effect. We remember why this was put into effect. Because there was a severe crisis at the time. That crisis is gone. The authority for what I just said is no less than the President of the United States, President Clinton, who, last year in his budget submission, said we can cut this program in half. Now, nothing has changed between last year and this year. As a matter of fact, the area of the Northeast has improved its economy. So there are fewer people that would require the assistance. But still we have people from all over the United States and, in particular, the Northeast part of the country saying that this is an absolute necessity for the people who are their constituents, they cannot get along without it. Mr. President, there is a billboard in my community. It has a nice picture of Uncle Sam painted on it, and it says: ``Remember, he's your uncle, not your dad.'' We have to stop relying on the Federal Government to do so many things for us. Yes, there are a lot of things that would be nice if we had the money for them. But as we learned during the debate on the balanced budget amendment, it is time to begin setting priorities. And when the President of the United States, a previous supporter of the program, says it ought to be cut in half because the need for it has been substantially reduced because the original problem--the energy crisis--is now gone, should we not in the House and in the Senate be willing to follow that advice, make the tough decision, The House of Representatives was willing to do so, but in the Senate, apparently that is not the case. So, Mr. President, it seems to me that I could not talk to the folks in my State about reducing Federal spending and then stand by silent as we adopt this rescission package in the Senate without speaking to this program. When the conference committee between the House and Senate meets, I am hopeful that a larger rescission will be accepted. I am willing, as I said, not to force this to a vote here and upset the applecart and cause the President to veto the entire rescission package, if he were to do that, because it is important that we get even $13 billion rescinded, although $17 billion would be a better number. But I think the American people need to start focusing on this. I go back to what I said originally when those who opposed the balanced budget amendment said, ``You send us back here to make the tough choices and we will do it,'' as we find oftentimes, they are not willing to, and the main reason is because they can always argue that poor people benefit from the program. That is always the case. But that does not justify every bit of spending, because it is hard-working Americans who get up early in the morning, send their kids off to school, work hard all day long, come home tired and pay plenty of taxes so that programs like this can continue. It is not mean spirited to say enough is enough. They need to be able to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend as they see fit. So I think it is time we do reexamine this program. I submit that the House rescission number is a better number, and I urge my colleagues in the conference to support that number. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 30 seconds.

Mr. KYL. In my 48 remaining seconds, let me say, ``I told you so.'' I said at the beginning that Members would come running out of their offices to come to the floor and pronounce themselves four square in front of this program, because this is critical. We can cut others but we cannot cut this one. That is exactly what is wrong with this process. Every one of them is critical. We have got to start somewhere. Mr. President, I started where President Clinton started last year when he said we can cut it in half, that it was time to shift away from this program. By the way, it is not just Sunbelt mentality. Even in my State people receive funds for weather-stripping and air conditioning support, just to show how ridiculous the program has gotten. We could all use the help, of course, but we have to start somewhere. I just ask this question, Mr. President, if we are not ready to start with this one, we are not ready to start with the other ones we voted down today, where are we willing to start to cut this $1 trillion budget deficit? We have to start somewhere.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, 30 seconds. I just wanted to close the debate that I began, if I could. Reasonable people will differ. The House of Representatives trimmed us by $1.3 billion. It seems to me that they represent all regions of the country just as much as Senators do. I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone who speaks in here. But I do doubt the Congress' commitment if we cannot start with a program like this. And I hope that when the conference meets, we will rescind more.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. The 11 freshman Republican Senators have made it a point to come to the Chamber and speak each week on an important topic because we have just gone through an election, have just spoken very directly with our constituents, with a large segment of the block of voters who called for change in this last election. The Presiding Officer experienced that as well, and knows the fervor with which our constituents approach the issues of reform and change. No issue that they talked about in the last campaign had more emotional feeling to it, I think, than the issue of welfare reform. Because they not only recognized that welfare reform could result in huge savings of money to the Federal Government, but that we were destroying generations of people, creating a cycle of dependency from which too many people were finding it impossible to extricate themselves. So it is a very personal challenge as well as a sound, prudent fiscal policy that causes us to look to the issue of welfare reform. We do that this week because we want to compliment our House colleagues for passing a meaningful fundamental welfare reform package, the first real effort to reform our failed welfare system in decades, and to say to our House colleagues: You got the ball rolling and now it is our opportunity in the Senate to take advantage of the momentum you have created, to take the legislation you have passed and to try to improve upon it if we can, and to get a bill to the President which he can sign, truly ending welfare as we know it. The House bill, in most people's view, is not a perfect bill. But it is a very good start toward this issue of welfare reform. As I said, it is now our opportunity. Let me just make four quick points about what I think our approach to this problem ought to be. Our current system, I think almost everyone has now recognized, does not foster independence, and family, and responsibility--all values that we know are essential, but, instead, perpetuates both material and behavioral poverty. The most compassionate, responsible course of action that I think we can take is to find a way to free our Nation's children and families from dependency in this terribly flawed welfare system. Toward that premise I think we should first admit that continued dramatic increases in Federal social welfare spending have failed to reduce the number of people in poverty in this The Federal Government has spent more than $5 trillion on social welfare programs since President Johnson declared the war on poverty, yet, according to the Congressional Budget Office figures, total spending will rise to 6 percent of the gross national product by 1998. Since the mid-1960's, poverty has actually increased from 14.7 percent to 15.1 percent today. So after spending all this money we have not eradicated poverty. It is more in our land than before. Second, the Federal Government does not know best how to spend our hard-earned dollars. One of our colleagues gave us a test. If you inherit $100,000 and because you are a good citizen you want to, in effect, tithe a tenth of that to solve the problem of social deconstruction in our country, to whom would you give that $10,000? What organization would you give it to, to best help eradicate poverty in your own community? I daresay none of us would invest that in the U.S. Government. None of us would say the Federal Government welfare programs are pretty good, let us give the $10,000 to them. We would pick the local homeless shelter or Salvation Army or some other local group that really knows how to stretch the dollars and make the individual decisions in the community that we know work. It is interesting, several Governors, including Tommy Thompson from Wisconsin, whose welfare roles have declined 25 percent over the past few years, have had to ask for literally hundreds of waivers from the U.S. Government in order to achieve welfare reform in their own States. So giving States more flexibility to quickly achieve welfare reform will help those in need. Third is the point the Senator from Wyoming just made, and it is a very important point, we must end the damaging and incorrect rhetoric which suggests that somehow by reforming welfare we are going to be taking food out of the mouths of young children. This is rhetoric of the worst kind. The House bill, for example, has been criticized, but few point out that the House bill actually increases funding for school lunch programs by 4.5 percent each and every year for the next 5 years, an increase of $1 billion; and that the block grants to the States will save money and enable them to apply those funds to the children. Fourth, the Federal Government and the States must continue to search for ways, whether they be difficult initial choices or not, which foster self-sufficiency, encourage marriage, and work. The House bill contains several such incentives. For example, we should eliminate the marriage penalty created in the Tax Code. Fathers should be required to live up to their financial responsibilities. Again, giving States the flexibility to design programs which will effectively reduce out-of- wedlock births and other similar conditions which create poverty are an important element of any welfare reform program. There is more, but I think we make the point that there are several things that need to be done here. The House was on the right track and we in the Senate need to give our backing to that in the kind of bill we pass out of Senate and not let this momentum flag but be able to send a bill to the President. I conclude with this point. There is a big difference between taking care of people and caring for people. Taking care of people was the philosophy of the Great Society programs. It has not worked. True compassion is caring for people in a way that provides them a hand up, not a handout. That should be the guiding philosophy to end the cycle of dependency that has been created by 40 years of misguided welfare policies. That should be the guiding philosophy of true welfare reform that comes out of the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the Senator from Wyoming for again getting the freshmen Members of the Senate here to talk about this important subject.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I listened with care to comments of the Senator from Michigan. I think he raised some legitimate points regarding both the House bill and also the Senate bill, S. 219, which came from the committee. At the conclusion of his remarks, he got to the point that I would like to speak to; that is, the Nickles-Reid substitute which he indicated would most assuredly answer many of the questions that he had raised, that it constituted the concept of legislative veto that would enable the House and Senate to examine these regulations each one by themselves to determine whether they could conform to the intent of the legislative branch which pass the laws in the first place. I think that is the bottom line here. That is the question. We should be able to rely upon the majority of the House and Senate to understand what we intended when we passed a law, and whether the regulations being issued by the regulatory agencies conform to our original intent. I suspect in most of those cases we will find that we agree with the regulations being proposed. But in those cases where we do not, we will have the opportunity to say so, and during the debate indicate why we think they perhaps do not conform to our original intent and, therefore, how the agencies can rewrite the regulations. Most of the consequences of the House bill, or Senate bill, S. 219, that the Senator spoke of are answered, it seems to me, by the Nickles- Reid substitute. You have concerns expressed I think with either a moratorium or a lookback except that during the lookback to November 9, 1994, the regulations remain in effect. And so there should be no real concern because those regulations remain extant and they are only stopped if the House and Senate decide that they need to be changed. And the 45-day moratorium with the exceptions for emergencies and for public health and safety reasons that require an immediate implementation of a regulation is not really much of a delay considering the fact that many regulations, most regulations are delayed 30 days from implementation anyway. It seems to me the opportunity to look at these regulations and determine whether they conform to congressional intent is good and that we give up very little because the regulations already in effect remain in effect until we look at them and those regulations which are not emergencies are only delayed for a period of 45 days. The concern that many of us have is twofold: The cost of regulations to our families, to our businesses and to society in general and also the burden of regulations today cry out for solution. There are two charts here which I would like to briefly use to demonstrate that point. The pages of the Federal Register is some rough measure of the burden of these regulations, and we are almost up now to 67,000 pages in the Federal Register. You can see from the year 1976 that regulations went all the way up to 73,000 pages during the 1978 and 1979 period, down to a low during 1986 of about 44,000 pages in the Federal Register; last year, almost Federal Register as of this date. And by the way, that is pretty fine print so we are not talking about regulations just of one or two to a page. This demonstrates in at least some gross way the size of the burden that we are imposing on people. I defy anybody to understand what is in all of these regulations. We spend billions of dollars trying to comply with the law. We all remember as school kids we learned the phrase ``ignorance of the law is no excuse,'' but in fact Americans, all of us, are ignorant of the law. We cannot possibly know what is in all of these regulations and comply with them, and we hire people to help us with that, spending billions of dollars in the process. That gets to the second chart, Mr. President. The cost of Government per household 2 years ago, 1993, for the Federal regulatory burden was $6,000 compared to the Federal tax burden of $12,000. As a matter of fact, depending upon which study you look at, the cost by the end of 1993 of complying with Federal regulations overall, counting businesses as well, was just about equal to the Federal tax burden. So if you include businesses as well as families in this, what you find is that we are paying as much to comply with regulations as we are money to the Federal Treasury. In rough dollar terms, about $1 trillion we pay into the Federal Treasury, about $1.3 trillion, as I recall. And the cost of complying with regulations is somewhere in that rough area, of roughly $1 trillion a year. It is hard for any of us to comprehend what $1 trillion is, but for the average household we can understand $6,000 a year to comply with Federal regulations. We know that it is hard to know what is in them all. We know that it is expensive and burdensome. We know that they are not all necessary. That is what our effort is all about, to have the Congress have at least the opportunity to look at them before they go into effect, to say, yes, that is needed, that is what we intended, let it go. Or, wait a minute, this goes far beyond what the Congress intended when we passed this law. This is not the kind of burden that we intended to impose upon society, upon our families, upon small businesses, for example. Or for some other reason to say, time out, hold this regulation up; this is not an appropriate extension of the law. Mr. President, I just want to conclude with this story. When I first went to law school, I remembered thinking about the difference between administrative law and statutory law. I had never had occasion to think about that distinction before. The legislative branch passes laws, the executive branch signs those laws and then implements them. That is what I had learned in high school and in college. However, I came to appreciate a distinction, that when you get to the way it really works in the real world with the Federal Government, you have the legislative branch passing laws that are usually not very many pages. Now, we like to talk about all these big laws and most of them are not that big. And then we tend to forget about it. This is what we intend to happen or to prevent from happening. It is then the job of the executive branch of Government to translate that into all of the rules and regulations by which the law is implemented. A funny thing happens. The regulators end up taking far more space in the Federal Register writing many, many times the number of words to explain precisely what it is that Congress meant. And Congress does not go back and look at that until constituents come to us and say, ``Do you realize what you did when you passed this law? Do you realize what this regulator is making me do?'' Frequently we say, ``Well, now, that is not what we intended.'' But we never get around to changing the regulations. We literally have to go back and amend the law. Well, this allows us a more efficient procedure, a shortcut, if you will, an opportunity before the fact, before the regulations hurt people to say, time out, Mr. Regulator friend of ours here in the executive branch, you are going beyond what we intended when we passed the law. So scale it back in this regard and then that will be what we intended and that is what our constituents then can live with. I believe that this is long overdue. I have constituents back home who have pleaded with me to please try to do something to solve this problem. And I think that in the Nickles-Reid amendment we have really come to a good balance. We have found a way to look at old regulations and to consider new regulations and a way to ensure that they conform with congressional intent without preventing the executive branch through proper administration to deal with emergencies, to deal with public safety and the like. I think it is a good balance, and I think it is important for us to adopt this kind of approach. I am looking forward to the next day or two of debate hoping that we can get the Nickles-Reid substitute passed, go to conference with the House version of their bill, and quickly get a bill signed and sent to the President for his signature. I thank the Chair. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to follow through on some of the remarks of the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Helms, to introduce the Family Heritage Preservation Act, a bill to repeal Federal estate and gift taxes, and the tax on generation-skipping transfers. A companion bill, H.R. 784, was introduced in the House of Representatives last month by Congressman Chris Cox of California. unfair taxes currently on the books. It penalizes people for a lifetime of hard work, savings, and investment. It hurts small business and threatens jobs. It causes people to spend time, energy, and money finding ways to avoid the tax--by setting up trusts and other devices-- when they could otherwise devote those resources to more productive economic uses. The estate tax is particularly onerous for small family businesses. According to a 1993 survey by Prince & Associates--a Stratford, CT, research and consulting firm--9 out of 10 family businesses that failed within 3 years of the principal owner's death said that trouble paying estate taxes contributed to their companies; demise. That is a travesty. As if the Federal Government didn't tax enough during life, it has to prey upon people and their grieving families ever after death. As a constituent of mine, Pearle Wisotsky Marr, wrote in a recent letter to me: Since my father died, our lives have been a nightmare of lawyers and trust companies with the common theme, `you have to protect the family business.' It was hard enough trying to recuperate after my father's long illness, and then adjusting to the reality he was gone. That's wrong, and it's economically destructive. The Marr family built up a small business from just one employee 35 years ago to 200 employees today. Creating badly needed jobs in the community is not something for which the Marr family should be penalized. It's something that should be encouraged. A study published by the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation [IRET] looked at how the Nation's economy would have performed had the transfer taxes been repealed in 1971. The simulation showed that, by 1991, the gross domestic product [GDP] would have been $46.3 billion higher, there would have been 262,000 more full-time equivalent jobs, and the stock of capital would have been $398.6 billion greater than the respective actual amounts in that year. The report went on to project that if the transfer taxes were repealed in 1993, the nation would experience significant economic benefits by the year 2000. ``GDP would be $79.22 billion greater, 228,000 more people would be employed, and the amount of accumulated saving and capital would be $630 billion larger than projected under present law.'' These taxes have an impact on Americans of all income levels. As noted in the IRET's report, ``by discouraging private saving and capital formation, these taxes depress labor productivity and real income. Transfer taxes, thus, impede labor's upward mobility.'' Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Family Heritage Preservation Act. I ask that the text of the bill be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the Senator from Indiana yielding. To review the bidding here on this substitute, naturally I support the Dole-McCain-Coats line-item veto because I think it represents a better approach, the approach that the American people understand. In the first place, in civics class in the eighth grade, we all learned that a veto requires a two-thirds override. That is what veto is all about. That is what this provision has, unlike the version offered by the distinguished minority leader, which would only require a 50-percent override. That is not what we think of when we think of a veto. So that is the first important distinction. Second, with respect to tax breaks, it has never been the concept, in lining that we would add tax breaks to the line-item veto legislation. But in order to accommodate some of our friends on the other side, we did say that if there is an omnibus tax bill, and somebody decides to slip in a tax break for their friend back home, the President could strike that out just as he would an item of spending, of pork-barrel spending, because a tax break for a very limited group or individual would be similar to pork-barrel spending. So that is included in the Republican version of the line-item veto. But what we do not think is appropriate is to put more than necessary roadblocks in the way of reducing taxes for all Americans, as the Democratic approach would do. If we are going to give Americans a $500 child tax credit, or if we are going to provide a capital gains tax relief, or reduce the marginal rates, we think that is a matter that we ought to be promoting and not putting roadblocks in the way. The truth is that in most of these major tax changes, it is a regular bill that comes out of the House and Senate. It is subject to Presidential veto, anyway. So the President can veto it. It would require a two-thirds override by the Members of the House and Senate. So really, this argument, I think is a straw man. On most tax legislation, there will be the two-thirds override, anyway. On that which does not require that, we should not be throwing up more roadblocks in the way of tax breaks for the American people except for those that represent special interests which are taken care of. In some respects, it seems to me that the Democrats are not willing to take yes for an answer. They wanted the issue of the tax breaks included. We did it. They wanted the so-called ``lock box'' so that any savings will be applied to deficit reduction. We did that. They want to ensure that the President could not veto rescissions. We are going to be doing that. In other words, most of the primary concerns that were raised about the Republican version of the line-item veto have been agreed to. We are taking care of those. Let us take yes for an answer. We are willing to make this a bipartisan and better bill. Of the issues remaining, some are I think matters of legitimate dispute. The issue of reprogramming that the Senator from Georgia mentioned I think represents a potential problem. It may be somewhat cumbersome. We will have to see whether Members of the House and the Senate are willing to deal with each other in a matter of comity and in a matter of expedition in getting these rescissions through. But there is nothing wrong with having all Members of this body consider them as opposed to just a few on the committee. So I think that is something we will have to see how it works. But it should not be a big problem. There is the possibility that committees will not provide the specificity that is called for in the legislation. What this argument assumes is that Members of the House and Senate, in effect, will cheat; that we will decide to get around the line-item veto by not putting in the specific line items, thus for the President to veto if he does not like them. It is possible that we could try to conjure up ways of getting around this. That is what happened with the balanced budget proposals. That is what happened with Gramm-Rudman, and with other kinds of legislation. I suspect, however, that good faith will prevail and that the majority, which in fact favors the line-item veto and favors it working, will ensure that as this legislation does work over the next 5 years, it will be handled in such a way and will operate in such a way that the President will be given the ability to line out specific items as is the intention under the legislation. Of course, with respect to the argument that there is a difference between the majority position here of a two-thirds override and the minority view that there should only be a 50 percent override, that there is a great deal of power being given to the President, that is a legitimate argument. Reasonable people can differ about this. That is why the sunset provision is in the legislation. This legislation does not automatically continue forever. After 5 years, it is over, and it will not be reinstituted unless we decide it was a good idea and we pass it again. That is where this issue can be evaluated. And if Presidents have abused their authority, I am sure you will not see the Senate passing this kind of legislation again. But if Presidents have done what they should, if they have acted responsibly, then I suspect we will be reinstituting this legislation. That is what sunset is all about. We will have an opportunity to look at it. So the bottom line, Mr. President, is really whether we want to continue to conduct business as usual or not. The American people obviously do not want us to do that. They want us to change the way Congress conducts its business and the business that it conducts. The line-item veto is a significant improvement in the way the Congress conducts its business. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding this time to me. I appreciate his work on trying to finally get this line-item veto passed. Mr. President, I think most people agree that the top priority of the Federal Government today is to reduce the size of the budget deficit. Not to do so is to relegate all of us--especially our children--to a lower standard of living. Balancing the Federal budget will not be easy. Some popular programs will have to be cut. Others will have to be eliminated as Congress finally begins to set priorities--to distinguish between needs and wants--just like families across America must do every day. When a family runs short of money, it does not sacrifice food from the table or the roof overhead to go to the movies every weekend, to buy new furniture, or put a new stereo in the car. The choices that a family has to make are often far more difficult--whether to buy new clothes for the kids or supplies for school; whether to buy food or medicine; whether to fix the roof or repair the car. When resources are limited, the family eliminates the extras and then tries its best to meet its basic needs. Even that can be trying. The head of the household has to make tough choices that will not necessarily be very popular with the rest of the family, but that is what it takes to try to make sure the family can survive and prosper. Like the family, the Federal Government cannot satisfy every want; it cannot even answer every need. With interest payments on the national debt eating up a substantial part of the Federal budget--about $300 billion this year alone--we are finding ourselves with less and less every year for many basic Government programs. Hurt most are those who are dependent upon Government services--the poor and the elderly--and our children and grandchildren whose future will be marked by a lower standard of living as they struggle to pay off the debts we are accumulating today. important first step in gaining control over the budget. Mr. President, this is the ``1995 Congressional Pig Book Summary,'' a list of 88 projects that will cost taxpayers more than $1 billion. Compiled by the nonpartisan organization, Citizens Against Government Waste, it represents just a fraction of more than $10 billion in pork- barrel spending that the group identified in last year's appropriations bills. These are the kinds of projects that are likely to be the target of a line-item veto: Russian wheat aphid and swine research; highway demonstration projects; civilian sporting events funded out of the defense budget; and a program that has used funds in the past for a golf video and pony trekking centers in Ireland. These are the kinds of projects that are typically hidden away in annual spending bills. They are enough to demonstrate legislators' ability to bring home the bacon and curry favor with special interest groups back home. But, they usually don't amount to enough to prompt the President to veto an entire bill bringing large parts of the Government to a standstill in the process. The result, as Citizens Against Government Waste put it, is that it all adds up to a raw deal for taxpayers. The line-item veto is designed to bring accountability to the budget process. Instead of forcing the President to accept wasteful and unnecessary spending in order to protect important programs, it puts the onus on special interests and their congressional patrons. It subjects projects with narrow special interests to a more stringent standard than programs of national interest. After a Presidential veto, the special interests would have to win a two-thirds majority in each House. That is the shift in the balance of power which the line-item veto represents. It is a shift in favor of taxpayers, and it is long overdue. If the government were running a surplus, the taxpayers might be willing to tolerate some extra projects. But the Government is running annual deficits in the range of $200 billion for as far as the eye can see. There is no extra money to go around. There is not even enough to fund more basic needs. Mr. President, when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule of thumb is to stop digging. Our Presidents have indicated a willingness to use the line-item veto--begin climbing out of the hole we have dug for ourselves and future generations. Let us pass the line-item veto. Mr. President, I want to conclude by complimenting my colleague from the State of Arizona, Senator John McCain. He has worked for about 10 years in opposition to pork-barrel spending on the floor of the Senate. He accumulated what he calls an enviable record of defeat. Frequently, his efforts to cut out pork are defeated by almost 2 to 1. But he keeps at it, and over the years he figures that, while he may not have won every vote, his efforts to bring to light some of these projects may at least have prevented some Members from inserting this pork in the appropriations bill in the first instance because of the fear that they might be embarrassed if their special-interest projects are brought to light. That is what the line-item veto would do. It not only gives the President the ability to line out projects that have been inserted, but it provides a disincentive for Members to put those projects in the bill in the first instance because now, with the President being capable of lining them out and bringing them to public attention, Members know that they had better be able to defend everything that they ask to be inserted into these bills. So it has a good effect on Members and their constituents, who come to them asking for special interest projects to say, ``Maybe in the past, I would have been able to do this, and I would like to do it to be of help to you, but you know that if we do it, all of the world will know that the President could line it out, and then I would have to get two-thirds of my colleagues to override the veto. Do you really want that much public attention paid to this special project?'' So there is a deterrent effect, if you will, in the line-item veto. That is one of the things that John McCain has talked about when he has stumped for this proposal in the last 10 years. I think a great deal of credit goes to Senator Coats, Senator McCain, and most recently, Senators Stevens and Domenici, who had different points of view but got together with the supporters of this basic version of the line-item veto proposal to work out a compromise that is acceptable to virtually all. The President is supportive of the line-item veto. All of the Republicans are ready to call an end to the debate at the appropriate time, and have a vote on the line-item veto. We certainly call on our colleagues from the other side of the aisle who support frugality in Government and understand we need to balance the budget and want to end pork-barrel spending to support us in this effort to vote for the line- item veto. Mr. President, I see that my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist, is here. I am sure he has some comments on the subject, as well. If the Senator from Wyoming is agreeable, I will yield at this time to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator from Minnesota.