Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce today with my colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain, the Walnut Canyon National Monument Boundary Modification Act of 1995. Identical legislation is being introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative J.D. Hayworth. This legislation is based upon consensus reached last year among interested parties, including local officials in Arizona, as well as residents of the Walnut Canyon area, the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service, with respect to modification of the monument boundaries for the purpose of better protecting important archeological resources. Walnut Canyon National Monument was originally established by Presidential proclamation in 1915 to preserve and protect numerous Sinaguan cliff dwelling and associated sites. The canyon includes five areas where archeological sites are concentrated around natural promontories extending into the canyon, areas which early archeologists referred to as forts. Three of the five forts are within the current boundaries of the monument, but the two others are located on adjacent lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The legislation I am introducing today would redraw the monument boundaries to include those areas and provided the protection that those resources need and deserve. About 1,239 acres of forest land would be transferred to Park Service administration. No State or private land would be affected. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Arizona, John McCain, to introduce legislation to repeal the outdated Trading with Indians Act. Originally enacted in 1834 with a legitimate purpose in mind, the Trading with Indians Act was intended to protect native Americans from being unduly influenced by Federal employees. But that act is no longer needed, and is in many cases unnecessarily punitive and counterproductive, in 1995. It is wreaking havoc on hard- working employees and their families, and it is bad for reservation economies. The act establishes a virtually absolute prohibition against commercial trading with Indians by employees of the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The prohibition extends to transactions in which a Federal employee has an interest, either in his or her own name, or in the name of another person, including a spouse, where the employee benefits or appears to benefit from such interest. The penalties for violations are severe: a fine of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 6 months, or both. The act further provides that any employee in violation be terminated from Federal employment. This can result in an employee being subject to criminal penalties and termination, not for any real or perceived wrongdoing on his or her own part, but merely because the person is married to another enterprising individual on an Indian reservation. The nexus is enough to invoke penalties. It means, for example, that an Indian Health Service employee, whose spouse operates a law firm on the Navajo Nation, could be fined, imprisoned, and/or fired. It means that a family member can't apply for a small business loan without jeopardizing the employee's job. The protection that the Trading with Indians Act provided in 1834 can now be provided under the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Government Employees. The intent here is to provide adequate safeguards against conflicts of interest, while not unreasonably denying individuals and their families the ability to live and work--and create jobs--in their communities. Both Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and Interior Department Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Ada Deer have expressed support for the legislation to repeal the 1834 act. As Secretary Shalala pointed out in a letter dated November 17, 1993, the Department ``agree(s) with the position that the Standards of Ethical Conduct, along with the criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 201-211, provide adequate safeguards against conflicts of interest involving Federal Government employees.'' Secretary Shalala went on to note that, ``in addition, the bill could improve the ability of IHS to recruit and retain medical professional employees in remote locations. It is more difficult for IHS to recruit and retain medical professionals to work in remote reservation facilities if their spouses are prohibited from engaging in business activities with the local Indian residents, particularly since employment opportunities for spouses are often very limited in these locations. Mr. President, I urge Members of the Senate to join me in this effort to promptly repeal an outdated and counterproductive law, and I ask that the text of my bill be reprinted in the Record at this point:

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act, which will require Congress to live by the same laws and regulations under which it requires businesses and individuals in the private sector to operate. S. 2 is the first in a series of bills the Republican-led 104th Congress will take up to respond to the mandate the citizens of this country sent to Congress last November. That mandate calls for Congress to take action to make this institution more accountable to the people and to produce a smaller, less intrusive, and more efficient government. Step one of this important mandate is S. 2, a bill to apply all the major labor, safety, and antidiscrimination laws to Congress. Making Congress live under the same laws it imposes on private sector businesses is simply a matter of fairness. Congress has exempted itself from these laws for over 50 years, but today, under new congressional leadership, this institution will no longer apply one very different standard to itself and one to business and individuals. Congressional employees will now have the same legal protections as employees in the private sector. Currently, congressional employees cannot bring suit in Federal district court. But, with passage of the Congressional Accountability Act congressional workers for the first time may bring a private action in Federal district court against Congress. Currently, House staff members have no rights of judicial review and Senate staffers can, after a lengthy internal process, take to the Federal circuit court of appeals complaints about decisions made by the Chamber's internal Office of Fair Employment Practices. As I traveled the State over the past year, from Yuma to Flagstaff to Cottonwood, the subject of congressional accountability evoked strong reactions from the citizens of Arizona. Their message was clear: Congress currently operates above the very laws it imposes on the people and that must change. Arizonans want their congressional Representatives and Senators accountable. They not only want, they demand passage of the Congressional Accountability Act. Grassroots support for congressional accountability certainly evolved, to some degree, out of a desire for fair treatment of the over 23,000 workers on the congressional payroll. But, by and large, what I have heard from small business owners and, yes, workers across Arizona is that Congress passes well-intentioned safety, labor, et cetera laws but they are often unrealistic and irrational. Business owners and workers believe Congress should feel the burden of these laws and regulations just as businesses across America feel the burden. It is these regulations and laws that get in the way of business owners and workers carrying out their respective purposes and earning an honest living. For example, Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] regulations require businesses to post employee injuries. A company faces a fine if a list is not posted, even if there have been no injuries. Businesses are also often required to fill out safety data sheets, which show how a company will handle various hazardous materials, for such simple substances as dishwashing liquid or even chalk. It is for violating these regulations that small businesses often face hefty fines from OSHA. Since Congress passed these laws and regulations, however, it should be subject to their implementation--to, for example, random OSHA site inspections that often result in unnecessary fines and burdensome paperwork. The Congressional Accountability Act will force Congress to adhere to the same regulations and pay the same fines, however unwise, as every other private business in America. Again, that is what is fair. And, that is what will give Members and Senators a better practical understanding of the laws and regulations it passes--in the end, I believe, it is this forced compliance and practical understanding of our Nation's civil rights, labor and safety laws that will result in the repeal or modification of the ones that are burdensome, ill-drafted, or unnecessary to ensuring the safety and labor rights of our Nation's workers. As John Motley of the National Federation of Independent Businesses stated so well in a recent letter to me When Congress exempts itself from burdensome laws, it sets itself above the people it governs. A small business owner who fails to comply with these laws must face the full weight of the Federal Government. Congress will only understand the effect of the laws they impose on America's entrepreneurs and job creators if they are required to live under the very same laws. Under S. 2, the 11 major safety and labor laws that are either completely or partially inapplicable now will apply to Congress. Those 11 laws are the Federal Labor Standards Act of 1964, and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, OSHA, the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Act, the Employee Protection Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the Veterans Reemployment Act. Congressional coverage will not be limited to those 11 laws. Under S. 2, all future legislation must include a report to describe how it applies to Congress or to describe why it does not. Consideration of a bill on the House or Senate floor would not be permitted if the bill report lacked such a statement. When the Congress knows that it must adhere to the provisions of whatever future legislation it passes, it will more likely pass legislation respecting the rights of individuals and businesses. Mr. President, the Congressional Accountability Act will not only make the U.S. Congress a better employer, it will show the American people that we understand the unfairness of existing congressional exemptions. The old saying, ``Do as I say, not as I do,'' will no longer apply to this institution because Congress will be living according to the same laws as others. Passage of this bill completes an important first step up the ladder of change the American people have demanded. I am pleased to be a part of a national commitment to fundamentally changing the way business is conducted here in Washington, DC, and I urge my colleagues, without delay, to pass S. 2.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise as an original co-sponsor of S. 50, the ``Senior Citizens Tax Fairness Act of 1995.'' As Senator Lott has explained, passage of S. 50 would repeal the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA `93). I believe S. 50 represents an important ``first step'' in re-establishing the fundamental American principles of limited government, tax fairness, and self-reliance. I believe repeal of the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase is a simple matter of justice. During the 1992 presidential campaign, President Clinton promised to protect citizens ``who work hard and play by the rules.'' Surely, America's senior citizens are included in this category. Seniors have contributed to the Social Security system throughout their working lives. Many are dependent upon the government to discharge its obligations under the Social Security contract. Also during the campaign, the President said, ``we don't need to tamper with Social Security. It's solid. It's secure. It's sound. And I'm going to keep it that way. . . You can take that one to the bank.'' But, the President broke his promise. Included in the President's 1993 tax legislation was a big penalty for many seniors. Under the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase, senior citizens with incomes over $34,000 and couples with incomes over $44,000 are now taxed on 85% of their Social Security benefits. This represents a 70 percent increase in the marginal tax rate over prior law. For some beneficiaries, this has meant an annual tax hike of $2,700. When the Social Security Tax Increase is combined with the ``Social Security Earnings Limitation,'' a senior's marginal tax rate can reach 88%-- twice the rate paid by millionaires! This is not taxation. This is confiscation. The CBO estimates that, in 1994, 9.5 million beneficiaries were hit by the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase. This figure will rise to roughly 13.5 million by 1998 and will go higher each year thereafter because this tax is not indexed for inflation, thereby allowing ``bracket creep.'' To remedy the injustice imposed by the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase, Senator Trent Lott and I have introduced S. 50, the ``Senior Citizens Tax Fairness Act of 1995.'' S. 50 would repeal the punitive rate of taxation imposed upon millions of middle class senior citizens by the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase. S. 50 is identical to H.R. 2959, which I introduced as a member of the House of Representatives on August 6, 1993, the day this tax increase was passed by the Congress. According to a Heritage Foundation analysis of figures provided by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the U.S. Treasury Department, the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase will remove $380,675,441 from the pockets of Arizona's senior citizens between 1994 and 1998. Throughout America, $24.6 billion will be confiscated from seniors during the same period. The President and some members of Congress apparently forgot that Social Security is not an insurance policy intended to offset some unforeseen future occurrence. Rather it is a supplemental pension plan with a certain amount paid on a regular basis to retirees who made contributions to the fund on a regular basis throughout their working lives. Social Security is a planned savings program designed to provide income during an individual's retirement years. Mr. President, since the imposition of the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase, I have heard from thousands of senior citizens. Their message is clear and persuasive: While they are willing to do their fair share to reduce the size of the budget deficit, they do not understand why they must pay a new tax on their Social Security benefits in order to finance increased federal spending. America's seniors believe the government should cut spending first. And they are absolutely right. The history of federal taxation--including the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase--demonstrates compellingly that tax increases inevitably provide for increased federal spending rather than deficit reduction, as these measures are frequently advertised to provide. For instance, a study by the Joint Economic Committee found that, since 1947, every dollar of increased taxation resulted in $1.59 in increased Federal spending. This confirms a study by the Office of Management and Budget which concluded that, in the 1970s, tax revenues grew by $324.3 billion while spending rose by $395.3 billion. Thus, during this time period, for every dollar in higher taxes, spending rose by $1.22. In the 1980s, tax revenues increased by $514.6 billion. However, instead of using these additional revenues for deficit reduction, the Congress increased spending by $661.7 billion, a spending increase of $1.29 for each dollar of revenue raised through new taxes. This trend has dramatically worsened since 1990. In fiscal years 1990-1993, federal spending has increased by $1.91 for each dollar of new revenue raised through taxation. The Congress imposed major tax increases in 1982, 1984, 1987, and 1990. In each case lawmakers promised that the revenues raised would be used to reduce the deficit. However, in each instance, new tax revenues were used to fund new Federal spending. In fact, under OBRA '93, Federal spending is projected by the CBO to increase from $1.467 trillion in 1994 to $1.758 trillion in 1998--an increase of $291 billion. The same is true about revenues raised by the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase. These revenues have not been used to reduce the deficit. These revenues have been used to provide for additional Federal spending. The Clinton Social Security Tax Increase hinders economic growth by reducing incentives to save, work, and invest. For instance, a Social Security recipient in the middle tax bracket receiving $8,000 in annual benefits paid almost $800 in additional taxes this year. However, this individual pays the tax only because participation in the work force generates taxable income above the marginal rate. The incentive not to work is clear: The payment of additional taxes on benefits is required as a result of earnings received from productive economic activity. Taxation discourages this activity. It is also important to remember that Social Security is not the cause of the deficit. As we all know, the Social Security system now has an annual surplus of between $50 and $60 billion dollars. And, although CBO projects Social Security spending to rise by an average of 4.96 percent annually over the next 5 years, it is not growing at an astronomical rate. We must remember that the driving force behind the growth in Federal spending is not Social Security; it is Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is projected to rise by an average of 11.9 percent annually between 1993 and 1998. Medicaid is projected to grow at an annual average rate of 12.8 percent over the next 5 years. Mr. President, because Social because the revenues generated by the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase are not used to reduce that deficit. I believe justice requires that this tax be repealed. I believe America's primary problem is not that our citizens are taxed too little but that government spends too much. With regrettable consistency, the Clinton Social Security Tax Increase of 1993 continued the failed policies of past Congresses that seemed actually addicted to raising taxes and adverse cutting spending. Passage of S. 50 will represent an important reversal of this ``tax and spend'' tendency. The American people have given the 104th Congress an historic opportunity to reaffirm the fundamental principles of limited government, tax fairness, and self reliance. The Congress must not continue to impose higher taxes on Social Security to provide for additional Federal spending. Further, the Government simply must stop borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, and must begin the process of insuring the solvency of the system for all current and future retirees. But we cannot and should not begin this process until there is a significant national consensus and until all retires are adequately protected. I hope you will join Senator Lott and me in supporting passage of S. 50, which will repeal the unjust Clinton Social Security Tax Increase. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce the Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment [BBSLA], an initiative which is designed to end Congress' addiction to overspending and give the Nation a chance at a healthy economic future. It is an initiative which has been endorsed in the past by such taxpayer groups as Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Tax Reform, and the National Tax Limitation Committee, not to mention the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation among others. Like other balanced budget amendments which will be considered, the BBSLA requires a balanced Federal budget. It is unique, however, in two other respects--both substantively and in its objectives. Substantively, it includes a Federal spending limitation. It limits spending to 19 percent of Gross National Product, which is roughly the level of tax revenues the Federal Government has collected annually for the last generation. With respect to objectives, the BBSLA is designed to promote both fiscal responsibility and economic growth. Just before Congress considered balanced budget amendments in 1992, the General Accounting Office released a report predicting that, based on then-current trends, Federal spending could grow to 42.4 percent of GNP by the year 2020. That would be up from about 23 percent of GNP today. Slower economic growth would result, and combined with a growing debt burden, the next generation could expect no improvement in its standard of living. A report released the year before by Stephen Moore of the Institute for Policy Innovation came to similar conclusions about the proportion of GNP that the Government would command if current trends continue. The report concluded that: Meaningful, constitutional limits on the growth of spending are needed to bring the size of government down to economically sustainable levels. One way to achieve this end would be to limit the percentage of GNP which the government can command from the private sector. The idea of spending limits is not new. Nineteen States across the country have some form of spending limitations, in statute or in their constitutions. California, for example, adopted a constitutional limit in 1979, limiting yearly growth in appropriations to the percentage increase in population and inflation. Tennessee adopted its constitutional limit in 1978, limiting the growth in appropriations to the growth in State personal income. Texas, also in 1978, adopted a constitutional limit, tying the growth in biennial appropriations to the rate of growth of personal State income. The BBSLA is modeled after Arizona's spending limitation, which I helped draft in 1974 with then-State Senate Majority Leader Sandra Day O'Connor, now Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; State Senator Ray Rottas, who went on to become State Treasurer of Arizona; Clarence Duncan, a prominent Arizona attorney; and a handful of others. The spending limit, set at 7 percent of State personal income, was approved by an overwhelming 78 percent of the State's voters. Combining a balanced budget requirement with a spending limitation achieves two things: first, it treats the cause of big deficits-- excessive government spending--and not just the symptoms of that problem--high taxes and excessive borrowing. Our problem is not that Congress doesn't tax enough; it is that Congress spends too much. Moreover, this approach recognizes that the only way Congress really can balance the budget is by limiting Federal spending to the level of revenues that the economy has been willing to bear. Over the last 40 years--in good economic times and bad, despite tax increases and tax cuts, and under presidents of both political parties--revenues to the Treasury have remained relatively constant at about 19 percent of GNP. That is because changes in the tax code change people's behavior. Low taxes stimulate the economy, resulting in more taxable income and transactions, and more revenue to the Treasury. Higher taxes discourage work, production, investment and savings, so revenues are always less than projected. Although tax cuts and tax rate increases may create temporary declines and surges in revenue, revenues always adjust at roughly the same percentage of GNP as people adjust their behavior to the new tax laws. So you cannot reduce the deficit and balance the budget by raising taxes. The point is, if revenue as a share of GNP remains relatively steady no matter what Congress does, the only way to really raise revenues is to grow the economy first. In other words, 19 percent of a larger GNP represents more revenue to the Treasury than 19 percent of a smaller GNP. The BBSLA thus attacks the cause of deficits head on-- it limits spending. And, by linking spending to the size of the economy--as measured by GNP--it not only recognizes the reality that a growing economy produces more revenue, but also gives Congress an incentive to support policies that ensure that economy is indeed healthy and growing. Only a growing economy--as measured by GNP--would increase the dollar amount that Congress is allowed to spend. So, if Congress wants to spend more money, it would have to support policies that promote economic growth first. Mr. President, it appears that a balanced budget amendment will pass this year. It is now time to ask which balanced budget amendment best meets the Nation's long-term needs; which amendment best addresses the root causes of the Nation's budget problems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise as the sponsor of S. 11, the ``Medical Care Injury Compensation Act of 1995.'' As the 104th Congress begins to consider targeted, market based health care reform options, we should remember that medical malpractice costs are an integral component of the high cost of medical care and health insurance. The current medical malpractice system encourages litigation and exorbitant out-of-court settlements. According to a Lewin-VHI study, direct liability costs have been growing at four times the rate of inflation. Defensive medicine is projected to add as much as $76 billion annually to national health care costs by the year 2000. Doctors' fear is reasonable when viewed in light of a study done by the Institute of Medicine which found that 40% of all doctors and 70% of all obstetrician-gynecologists will be sued during their careers. Mr. President, medical liability costs do not result in the productive use of our national health care dollars. According to a study by the Hudson Institute, of the billions spent annually on medical liability costs, 57 cents out of each dollar goes to lawyers rather than injured patients. This study concluded that medical liability costs added $450 in direct and indirect costs to each hospital admission. Nationally, this represents more than 5% of the average hospital's operating expenses. In an effort to address this problem through sensible targeted reform, I have introduced S. 11. This legislation caps non-economic damages such as pain and suffering at $250,000; imposes a limit on attorneys' fees of 25% of the first $150,000 recovered and 15% of any amount in excess of $150,000; provides for periodic payments where damages for future economic loss exceed $100,000; provides for mandatory offsets for damages paid by a ``collateral source;'' and reforms ``joint and several'' liability. S. 11 also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to the states for the implementation and evaluation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems. Mr. President, I believe S. 11 offers an important legislative mechanism for controlling national health care expenditures. I hope may colleagues will join me in support S. 11.