[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 23067-23077]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
  RELATED AGENCY PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 4461, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A conference report to accompany H.R. 4461, an act making 
     appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food 
     and Drug Administration, and related agency programs for 
     fiscal year ending September 30th, 2001, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           capital punishment

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, for nearly 200 years from the founding 
of our Republic, capital punishment has loomed as the ultimate 
punishment for the violation of our laws. This reflected a belief that 
such a severe penalty would serve as a deterrent to those who might 
think they can take an innocent life or bring injury to our people.
  While this Nation has always believed that capital punishment is an 
appropriate penalty for those who commit the most heinous of crimes, 
our criminal justice system has also been based on the premise that it 
is better--and it has been part of American lore to suggest that it is 
better that ten guilty men go free than an innocent man ever be put 
behind bars or lose his life.
  This is all the more true when what is at stake is not just putting a 
person in prison--an act that could be rectified or proven wrong--but 
the irretrievable taking of a human life. As long as there has been the 
American Republic, this has been a founding belief: Taking of a life, 
if it can deter a crime, but protecting a mistake of justice.
  Throughout our history, concerns have been raised about the fair 
application of the death penalty for exactly this concern.
  Almost 30 years ago, the Supreme Court, in Furham v. Georgia, 
effectively abolished the death penalty when it decided that death 
penalty statutes at the time did too little to ensure the equal 
application of the law. In doing so, the Court held that the death 
penalty, while itself not necessarily unconstitutional, was often being 
applied in a manner that was both arbitrary and too severe for the 
crime committed. As such, it constituted, as the death penalty was then 
applied, that it was a ``cruel and unusual'' punishment under the 
Constitution.
  Just 4 years later, in 1976, the Court, in its Gregg decision, 
reinstated the death penalty when it ruled that the newly enacted 
statutes in Florida, Texas, and Georgia were constitutional. By 
providing guidelines to assist the judge and the jury in deciding 
whether to impose death, those statutes addressed the arbitrariness 
that had previously colored capital sentencing.
  It was at this point in my life that I reached my own decision. I 
agreed with the Court in what had become the tenets of American history 
that the death penalty was fair and appropriate as a deterrent to 
crime; it was just when the application of the American Constitution, 
as the Court had held, where it was arbitrary, where there were not 
guidelines, where there was not a safety to protect the innocent or 
arbitrariness of penalty, it was unconstitutional.
  As the Court had found by 1976, I believed that with the right 
guidelines, a second jury, oversight, appeal, fair representation, the 
death penalty was right and it was appropriate.
  In the nearly 25 years since I reached my own judgment, and indeed as 
our country reached its decision, 666 people have been executed across 
the Nation.
  I rise today to bring attention to the point that in those 25 years, 
more than 80 people on death row have been found to be innocent and 
released. Some were hours, minutes, weeks away from their own 
execution.
  These were not reversals on technical grounds. For the people whose 
convictions were overturned, after years of confinement, years on death 
row, it was discovered they simply were not guilty of a crime for which 
they had been convicted.

[[Page 23068]]

  The Death Penalty Information Center reports that between 1973 and 
October 1993 there were an average of 2.5 convicted persons released 
per year. Since the advent of DNA testing, the number has increased to 
4.8 people per year. For any American, particularly someone such as 
myself who supports the death penalty, believes in the fairness of the 
death penalty, one can only imagine the responsibility individually and 
collectively we must feel.
  The question is begged; If this has happened since DNA testing, 4.8 
people released from jail on death row, my God, what has happened in 
recent decades? How many people were strapped to gurneys, had their 
wrists attached to leather strips in electric chairs, knowing in their 
own minds that they were innocent but executed? My God, what must they 
have thought of our society, justice, and our people?
  There are now 3,600 people on State and Federal death rows.
  Despite my own support of the death penalty and our society's general 
belief in it, we must face the reality that those 3,600 people some may 
be innocent. The events of recent months give little comfort to any of 
us who support the death penalty.
  Two weeks ago, the Governor of Virginia was forced to pardon a 
mentally retarded man who spent 9\1/2\ years on death row for rape and 
murder after DNA tests proved he was innocent--9\1/2\ years awaiting 
death.
  An inmate in Texas served 12 years on death row for the killing of a 
police officer before a film maker stumbled across his case and 
discovered evidence that established his innocence. An Illinois inmate 
was released just 50 hours before his scheduled execution because a 
student's journalism class at Northwestern University accepted his case 
as a class project and established with certainty his innocence--50 
hours before his death.
  The evidence, both academic and anecdotal, shows that the death 
penalty is not functioning as it must to ensure that innocent people 
not be put to death.
  What has happened to the conviction of the Founding Fathers and 
Jefferson's admonition that it is better 10 guilty men go free than an 
innocent man go to jail? It has not been ``an innocent man go to 
jail,'' but the evidence is overwhelming that some innocent men are 
going to death.
  It is not an easy issue. I am not here to ascribe the responsibility 
to others. I bear it, too. Through all my public life I have supported 
the death penalty, and I do not abandon it today. I believe it can be 
fair; I believe it can be just; and I believe it deters crime. I 
believe it is appropriate that society take the lives of those who 
would take the lives of others. But something is wrong.
  The fact is that sometimes these people committed other crimes, and 
most of the people who commit these crimes who are put to death are 
guilty. None of those things matter. It doesn't matter if it is only 1 
in 100. It doesn't matter if it is 1 in 1,000. As a just and fair 
society, no one can feel right about the fact that obviously without 
question some innocent people may be put to death or, if not put to 
death, are spending years of their lives on death row for crimes they 
did not commit.
  Nowhere is this problem more evident than the State of Texas. I do 
not say that because its Governor is a Presidential candidate or 
because of the other party. I don't care. It has no relevance to me. I 
ascribe nothing to George W. Bush. I am simply discussing the facts in 
the State for which this problem appears to be most prevalent.
  Since 1982, Texas has executed 231 people--and, in fairness, under 
both Republican and Democrat Governors, to take away any partisan 
motive.
  This year alone, 33 people have been put to death in Texas. Another 
446 are on death row.
  Because of the frequency of executions in Texas, that State offers us 
the best window through which to examine some of these concerns because 
in doing so, it quickly becomes clear that if the death penalty in 
Texas is representative of the rest of the Nation, we have a real 
problem.
  In a massive study of 131 executions in the State of Texas, it is 
documented that there were widespread and systematic flaws in trials 
and in the appeals process.
  In a third of the Texas death penalty cases, the defendant was 
represented by an attorney who had already been disbarred.
  How in God's name is it possible in a just and fair society to take a 
man's life or a woman's life in an American court of justice if that 
poor person, who is probably inevitably indigent, is represented by an 
attorney who has been proven to be incapable and is disbarred before 
the courts of the United States?
  My God, what kind of people have we become? Are we so interested in 
revenge, execution, and punishment of a man or woman that we would not 
give them a competent attorney? Several of these attorneys have 
themselves been convicted of felonies. Others have been jailed on 
contempt charges for sheer incompetence in the performance of their 
duties.
  The Supreme Court has held--and the Founding Fathers must have 
believed--that any man or woman who shares our citizenship has a right 
to counsel before the courts and a defense before the Government with 
their own attorney.
  Is this the standard they held? Is this the standard that every 
American would have for themselves--the right to an attorney who was 
disbarred, jailed, held in contempt, or found incompetent? Is this the 
barrier between an accusation against an American citizen and their 
execution?
  In one-third of the death penalty cases in the State of Texas, 
defense counsel presented no evidence or presented only one witness 
during the sentencing phase.
  When I made my decision in my life as our country made its judgment 
to support the death penalty, it was based on the Supreme Court 
requirement that there be a sentencing phase in the death penalty and a 
separate jury dealing just with the penalty of death.
  I think that is right. I think that is fair. That is why I support 
the death penalty.
  But now we find in the State of Texas that when that separate jury 
heard the case, these attorneys for these indigent men and women facing 
death presented no witnesses--or just one.
  This cannot possibly be what the Supreme Court envisioned for the 
protection of our citizens from execution.
  At least 23 cases featured notoriously unreliable ``hair 
comparisons''--visual matching of the defendant's hair to that found at 
the crime scene.
  This is unbelievable, but I am giving you the facts about this study 
of Texas cases.
  One hair ``expert'' in a capital case with a man facing death was 
temporarily released from a psychiatric ward to testify. Another 
``expert'' in a hair identification case pleaded no contest to multiple 
charges of falsifying and manufacturing evidence. There is the lone 
witness in a case that decides whether or not a man would be executed.
  Since 1995, the highest criminal appeals court of the State of Texas 
has affirmed 270 capital convictions, including some where the 
defendants' lawyers were asleep during trial. But in those 270 cases, 
new trials were granted on only 8 occasions.
  I do not think that I am suggesting to the Senate today an 
unreasonably high standard. But is it not appropriate at a minimum that 
in any case where a man or a woman is facing execution and the State is 
taking their lives, regardless of the evidence, that defense counsel 
should be awake during the trial? Where the evidence clearly 
establishes that the trial attorney is asleep, as a matter of simple 
justice, without contradiction, a new trial should be granted--at least 
on the penalty of death, if not of guilt or innocence.
  This same court of appeals upheld the conviction and sentencing of a 
Hispanic man who was sentenced to death after a psychiatrist testified 
that he was more likely to commit future acts of violence because of 
his ethnicity. A psychiatrist argues before a court in the United 
States of America that a man is more likely to commit a crime because 
of his ethnic origin, and a

[[Page 23069]]

court in the United States of America hears this evidence without 
reversal. It is unimaginable.
  The U.S. Supreme Court recently ordered a new sentencing hearing in 
that case because of the evidence.
  How many cases get to the U.S. Supreme Court? How many others would 
have filed? How many others are silent? How many others never got 
attorneys?
  As a result of such injustices, it is not unreasonable to conclude, 
as Bob Herbert did in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, that the 
death penalty in the State of Texas is nothing more than ``legal 
lynching.''
  This is not the death penalty that I have supported most of my life. 
This is not what the Supreme Court had in mind when it issued its 
standards. My God, this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind 
when they talked about equal justice before the law.
  There is a place in the American judicial system for capital 
punishment. I have not changed my mind. Certain crimes are so 
offensive, so outrageous, they so violate the public consciousness that 
capital punishment is the only appropriate response. It is, however, a 
remedy so severe that it must be administered with the greatest care, 
the greatest reserve, with the highest possible standards of justice, 
in representation and review, against arbitrariness, against 
discrimination, ensuring guilt, fairness, and uniformity.
  These cases in Texas--and while Texas may be the most egregious, it 
does not stand alone--simply do not make that standard.
  Supporters of the death penalty, like myself and a majority of 
Americans, are concerned that innocent people have been, are, or will 
be executed. And it is not a theoretical problem, it is real. In fact, 
in a recent survey by CNN/USA Today, 80 percent of Americans surveyed 
now believe innocent people in the United States have been executed in 
the last 5 years. That is quite a statement for us to make about our 
own country, our own system of justice. It is imperative that we take 
the necessary steps to ensure that it never happens again.
  Already we are seeing several States take the lead against just such 
a threat. The Governor of Illinois, a Republican, to whom I give great 
credit, troubled by the fact that a number of people on the State's 
death row had been found innocent, announced earlier this year that he 
would block all executions until it had been determined that the death 
penalty was being administered fairly and justly, and I applaud him.
  Maryland's Governor recently ordered a 2-year study of racial bias 
and death penalty procedures in his State, and I applaud him.
  The Governor of California recently signed into law a bill that would 
guarantee every convicted felon the right to have DNA evidence tested 
if it was related to the charges that led to his conviction. Good for 
California. But it should be good for every State in the Nation and for 
the United States of America.
  Although the Federal Government is not the arbiter of most death row 
cases, as with most issues, it has a responsibility to set an example. 
While the Federal Government has not executed someone since 1963, it 
cannot be said that the Federal system is the best it can be.
  This Government has an obligation to reform the death penalty to 
ensure that innocent people are protected and to ask the States to do 
the same. This, in my judgment, requires, at a minimum:
  First, ensure that defendants in capital cases have competent legal 
representation at every stage of the case. At every stage, there should 
be a lawyer who is trained, experienced, and has the ability to ensure, 
not just for the protection of the defendant but of the society, that 
we are not taking the life of an innocent person. I do not want just 
that defense for the defendant; I want that defense for me as an 
American, to know I am not responsible for the taking of the life of an 
innocent person.
  Second, provide defendants with access to DNA testing. If science has 
given us the ability to know with certainty whether a person is 
innocent or guilty, I want that evidence known before a person is 
executed, no matter what stage, no matter how many trials, no matter 
how many appeals. I want to know before execution whether that DNA 
evidence has been made available. States are doing it, and this 
Government should do it, too.
  I am a cosponsor of the Innocence Protection Act that was introduced 
by my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy of Vermont, to ensure that 
DNA evidence is provided, and I urge the Senate to consider it.
  I recognize that all of my colleagues may not support the death 
penalty as I have supported it and continue to support it, but as a 
matter of conscience, in fidelity with our founding principles, in a 
belief in all of our sense of fairness and equal protection before the 
law, for the reputation of our country, for confidence in our system of 
justice no matter how we may divide on the question of the death 
penalty, surely on this we can be of one voice and clearly we can 
demand no less.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                       ending the 106th congress

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I want to talk about a series of 
issues that are related to the final things with which we have to deal 
in ending this Congress. It is not a long list, but it is a list of 
things that are important. I hope my colleagues will indulge me while I 
talk about these issues.
  I read this morning in the New York Times, under the headline 
``Leaders in Congress Agree to Debt Relief for Poor Nations,'' that an 
agreement has been worked out on debt relief. I want to make it clear 
that I am not part of any such agreement. I hope an agreement will be 
worked out, and I would like to be part of an agreement. But I am not 
part of any agreement today.
  It is important, since so much has been said and written on this 
issue, that someone on the other side stand up and explain what this 
issue is about, why it is important, and why people all over America 
ought to be concerned about it and be concerned that it be done right.
  I remind my colleagues and those who might be listening to this 
discussion that routinely in America people borrow money and are 
required to repay it. Where I am from, College Station, TX, it is a 
pretty hard sell to talk about forgiving billions of dollars of debt to 
countries that borrowed money from us and, in too many cases, simply 
squandered or stole it, and now they do not want to repay it. They 
riot, they protest, they demand, but those things do not work in 
College Station, TX. In College Station, TX, when you borrow money from 
the bank or finance company or from your brother-in-law, you are 
expected to pay it back.
  Let me make it clear that I am not here to make the most negative 
case that can be made about debt forgiveness. The flip side of the coin 
is that many of these countries are desperately poor, and much of this 
debt can never be repaid. So the debate I want to engage in today is 
not against debt relief, as hard a sell as that is back home--and I am 
willing to make that sale or try to--but I am not willing to support 
debt relief unless we are going to have some reforms to assure that the 
money is not wasted.
  I remind my colleagues, while we talk about debt relief, we are 
actually appropriating over $450 million because we are paying off this 
debt. Our money was lent and was largely squandered, and now it is 
going to be used to pay off this debt.
  So, I am concerned because of the lack of accountability in how the 
money is being spent. Any Member of Congress knows this is an issue in 
which a great deal of interest has been taken.
  I had a group of holy people come to my office the other day to lobby 
for this debt forgiveness. I do not think since Constantine the Great 
called his ecumenical council in Nicaea has there been a larger 
gathering of holy people in one place than the people who came to see 
me about supporting debt forgiveness.

[[Page 23070]]

  And let me quickly add that everybody who came was well intentioned. 
Their hearts were in the right place. But the problem is not with our 
hearts; the problem is with our heads. Obviously, in this 2000th year 
of Christianity--this 2000th year of the birth of Christ--there is a 
movement all over the world to try to help the poor. But the question 
is, In forgiving this debt, are we really assuring that the money that 
we are giving is getting through to the people we are trying to help? 
And I think that is basically where the problem lies.
  Let me now talk about a couple of examples that illustrates this 
problem. I want to read from four newspaper articles that outline a 
story, in my opinion, of how this debt forgiveness is abused and how 
our taxpayer ends up holding the bag.
  The first story is from Africa News, July 23, 2000, and is from 
Kampala, Uganda--one of the initial countries targeted for debt relief.

       In March Parliament there approved the direct procurement 
     of a new 12-seat presidential Gulf Stream GIV Special 
     Performance SP jet at a cost of $31.5 million. Aviation 
     experts said that the final cost of the plane could well be 
     $47 million.
       The current presidential jet is a 9-seater Gulf Stream III 
     acquired just a few years ago.

  Now, from the August 2, 2000, issue of the Financial Times in London, 
I quote:

       The Group of Seven leading industrialized countries is 
     pressing the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development to stop export credits being used to help poor 
     countries buy arms and other ``nonproductive'' items.
       Although the OECD cannot impose binding rules, the U.S. and 
     Britain, leaders of the G7 initiative, believe ``naming and 
     shaming'' dubious policies could create pressure to get them 
     changed and prevent poor countries from squandering debt 
     relief.

  This article is from August 2, and on July 23 we learned that the 
Ugandan President has bought a new $47 million plane for his use. And 
we are naming and shaming, along with the British in the Financial 
Times.
  And now on September 13, 2000, in Africa News, Kampala:

       The Paris Club of creditor countries yesterday cancelled 
     $145 million of Uganda's debt under the Highly Indebted Poor 
     Countries (HIPC) initiative.
       Tuesday's Paris Club announcement brings Uganda's total 
     debt relief from the lending countries so far to $656 
     million. Uganda has also received $1.3 billion debt relief 
     pledges from the IMF and World Bank in debt relief over the 
     next 25 years.

  So on July 23, which turns out to be the day that debt forgiveness 
was announced for Uganda, the President of Uganda buys himself a new 
$47 million luxury jet. And on August 2 we are naming and shaming 
people who are abusing debt forgiveness dollars that come from American 
taxpayers. And then on September 13 it is announced that we have 
forgiven this debt, raising the total to $656 million for Uganda, the 
same country whose President on the day the debt forgiveness package 
was announced ordered a $47 million jet.
  Now, the final quote on this point is from the Wall Street Journal, 
dated October 12, 2000:

       On the day that Uganda qualified for debt forgiveness under 
     the Clinton initiative, the president of that struggling 
     African nation signed a $32 million lease-purchase agreement 
     for a brand-new Gulf Stream jet.

  It goes on to say that we have been assured by the administration 
that he got a pretty good buy on the jet.
  Now, I ask my colleagues, when we are talking about this debt 
forgiveness, should we be forgiving debt with the idea that it is going 
to help poor people in Uganda when the President of Uganda, on the day 
the debt relief is announced, buys a $47 million jet? Maybe you can go 
to College Station and sell that, but I cannot. And I am not going to.
  Let me go to the next point. All of the people who have written or 
called me, launched letters and sent calls and prayers and e-mails on 
this issue, say: We are trying to help people in these poor countries; 
don't stand in the way; forgive this debt, which I remind my colleagues 
means appropriating money to pay off the debt on their behalf.
  The next country I want to talk about is Chad. This is a country that 
is next on the list to receive debt forgiveness. The argument is that 
by forgiving Chad's debt, we are going to help poor people who live 
there. But let me read from this year's U.S. State Department ``Report 
on Human Rights Violations'' in Chad, a country that the administration 
is pressuring us to appropriate tax money for so he can forgive their 
debt. This is from the State Department issued under the name of the 
Secretary of State, who was appointed by President Clinton, not by me. 
This is what she says about Chad, a country on the list of countries 
that would receive debt forgiveness if we provide this $450 million. I 
quote:

       The security forces---

This is in Chad---

     continue to commit serious human rights abuses. State 
     security forces continue to commit extrajudicial killings. 
     They torture, beat, abuse and rape.

  Now, I ask my colleagues--and I ask public opinion--does it make 
sense for us to appropriate $450 million to forgive debt to a country 
when our own State Department, headed by the Secretary appointed by the 
same President who champions this debt forgiveness, tells us, ``State 
security forces continue to commit extrajudicial killings; they 
torture, beat, abuse, and rape''?
  Maybe you can go to College Station or Little Rock or Jackson Hole, 
WY, and sell that. I cannot.
  What we are facing is this: Based on good intentions, we want to 
forgive this debt, but what happens when there is clear and convincing 
evidence that the proceeds of the debt forgiveness are going to buy 
luxury jets for Government officials? And in Chad, remember that the 
ordinary citizens there did not borrow this money, this was a loan to 
the Government. So are we going to forgive debts to a government that, 
according to our very own State Department, continues to murder, 
brutalize, and rape its own people? I don't think so.
  Having said all of that, what is the solution to this problem? It 
seems to me that if this administration is serious about doing 
something other than what it believes will be good politics in this 
election, or something that will make us all feel good--forgiving all 
of this debt--what we have to do is try to replicate what happens in 
every American family when people have financial problems.
  So, what happens in Arkansas, Texas or anywhere in America, when the 
bill collector comes knocking at the door? What happens is that 
families get together around the kitchen table, they get out a pencil 
and try to figure out on the back of an envelope how much they are 
making and how much they are spending. They get out their credit cards, 
they get out the butcher knife, and they cut up their credit cards, and 
they try to reorganize. They change their habits and their behavior.
  It seems to me, when we are talking about forgiving billions of 
dollars of debt to governments--these loans were made to governments, 
not to people--when we are forgiving that debt, we have a right--in 
fact, I would say an obligation--to see that that debt forgiveness 
benefits the people who live in that country. These countries are not 
poor because of this debt. They are poor because they have oppressive 
governments, because they have economic policies that do not work, 
because they are denied freedom. The sad story is that if we forgive 
this debt, and we do not demand real reforms, nothing will change. This 
great opportunity to do something good for poor people in the world 
will be lost.
  In trying to work with the administration--and I would have to say 
that, in theory, there is a lot of agreement with the administration--
but when it comes time to put the requirements into place, that is 
where we cannot seem to work this issue out. The administration does 
not contradict its own State Department report on rampant human rights 
abuses. But when we're trying to set requirements for getting this debt 
forgiveness, that is where the administration says no.
  I have tried to reduce the requirements that I think the conscience 
of the Senate should require to some very simple things. And I just ask 
people who might be listening to what I am

[[Page 23071]]

saying to ask yourself: Are these unreasonable requirements in return 
for billions of dollars of taxpayer money?
  Let me remind my colleagues, I know there is a drunkenness that has 
come from this big surplus. Never in my political career have I seen 
money squandered as it is in our Government this very minute, even as I 
am speaking right now. It is frightening to me. But even in this moment 
of a huge surplus, surely everybody realizes and remembers that, for 
every dollar we get, every dollar we spend, somebody worked hard to 
earn that money.
  I believe that money ought to be respected. So in return for billions 
of dollars of the American taxpayers' money, here are the conditions to 
which I have asked the administration to agree.
  No. 1, we cannot forgive debt for a country that we find in our most 
recent human rights evaluation engages in a gross violation of human 
rights against its own people. In other words, what we would say to the 
government of Chad is: If you want this debt forgiven, then you have to 
quit killing, abusing, and raping your people. And if you do not do 
that, we are not going to forgive the debt. That is condition No. 1.
  I do not view that as unreasonable. Quite frankly, I would be ashamed 
to have my name affixed on a voting list to the forgiveness of this 
debt if we gave it to murderers, thugs, and rapists.
  The second condition has to do with the fact that these countries are 
poor because they are basically practicing socialism. They deny 
property rights and economic freedom, and, as a result, they are poor.
  We sometimes get the idea that because socialism does not work 
economically, that it is dying. But socialism works politically, which 
is why it is alive all over the world and why it is debated in 
Washington, DC.
  Now, here are three economic conditions that, at a minimum, I believe 
we need. First of all, if countries are going to take our money, they 
should be required to open their markets to meet the requirements of 
the World Trade Organization so that we have an opportunity to sell 
American goods in their economy, and so that their workers have a right 
to buy goods competitively, instead of being forced to buy expensive, 
inferior goods from a government-run monopoly.
  We have one of the most open economies in the world. We are the 
richest, freest, happiest people in this world. Asking those who are 
getting debt relief to do something that will help them is, I think, 
something that is required. It is something that must be done.
  Secondly, they would be required to set up a series of benchmarks, 
not just on opening up their economy, but also in those countries where 
government dominates the market, where huge numbers of people work for 
the government, and, in essence, the government runs everything, we 
would require, in return for the loan forgiveness, that they set up 
benchmarks for phasing out subsidies to these government-run 
enterprises.
  The third requirement is simply that in printing their financial and 
government records on how much money they are spending, how much they 
are taking in in taxes, how much they are borrowing, that we have 
transparency so that we and investors can know what is going on in the 
country and so that we can see whether they are taking actions that 
will actually improve the life of their people. And that would include 
transparency in their financial institutions and their banks.
  What this would say is, we do not forgive money until these 
conditions are in place. And if at any point along the way countries do 
not live up to these commitments, then we stop the debt forgiveness.
  Some people think these are outrageous conditions. But I just simply 
go back to College Station. When you have a line of credit with a bank, 
and you have told them you are using this line of credit to invest in 
your restaurant, and it turns out you bought a car for private use, 
they cut off your line of credit. When you do not tell the truth, you 
end up losing your line of credit.
  So I just want to urge, publicly, the administration to help Congress 
put together a program that will take this debt forgiveness and put it 
to work to help ordinary working people. If we do not do something like 
this, we are going to end up seeing this money spent on jet planes for 
government leaders; we are going to see the benefits of debt 
forgiveness go to the leadership elite; and 10 or 15 years from now, 
when these same countries have the same debt crisis, we will have 
someone like President Clinton who will be arguing that we could just 
fix all this if we just forgive this debt.
  I am willing to go along with the debt forgiveness. I am willing to 
go home and try to explain to people why these governments are treated 
better than citizens here are treated if I know the money is not going 
to be squandered or stolen or used to abuse the very people we are 
trying to help. But I intend to fight--and fight hard--to see that we 
do not take billions of dollars from American taxpayers to give to buy 
fancy airplanes for government officials, and that we do not use it to 
basically subsidize corruption and the abuse of the very people we are 
trying to help.


                                Amnesty

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, a second topic I rise to talk briefly about 
is the issue of amnesty. The White House sent a letter dated October 
12, 2000 to Congress which in many ways is one of the most 
extraordinary letters I have ever seen a President send to Congress. 
This letter, basically says the President will veto the Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill unless we grant amnesty to people who 
have violated our laws by coming to this country illegally. In other 
words, the President is threatening that he will veto a bill that funds 
DEA--the Drug Enforcement Administration--the FBI, the Federal prison 
system, our system of criminal and civil justice, he will veto that 
bill unless we in Congress grant amnesty to people who have broken the 
law by coming to the United States of America illegally.
  It is one thing for the President, functioning under the 
Constitution, to say: You have your idea about how much money should be 
spent. I have my idea. I don't think you are spending enough. That is 
what the President is saying every day. The President is threatening to 
veto appropriation after appropriation because he doesn't think we are 
spending enough. We are spending faster than we have ever spent since 
Lyndon Johnson was President of the United States, yet we are not 
spending enough money to suit President Clinton.
  You can argue that he is wrong, that it is dangerous, that one of the 
reasons the stock market is in shock today is this runaway Federal 
spending that endangers our economy and our prosperity, but it is a 
legitimate issue to be debating on an appropriations bill, how much 
money we spend.
  The President just happens to be wrong--dangerously wrong, in my 
opinion--and I am not going to support him. But that is one thing.
  But to say that unless we pass a law that has nothing to do with 
spending money, that forgives lawbreakers who came into this country 
illegally, he is going to veto a bill that funds the FBI, the DEA, and 
the criminal justice system is an outrageous assertion of Presidential 
power. Our President has been so successful in manipulating the 
Congress, he has forgotten that we have a separation of powers in 
America. He is going to get reminded in this debate.
  I don't want to get too deeply into the amnesty issue, but I will say 
a couple things about it. First of all, as the Presiding Officer knows, 
as anyone in the Senate knows, if there has been one Member who has 
been a champion of legal immigration, it is I. I have stood on the 
floor many times arguing for letting people with a desire to work hard, 
with talent, genius, creativity, and big dreams into America and to let 
them come legally. I am proud of the fact that my wife's grandfather 
came to America as an indentured laborer to work in the sugarcane 
fields in Hawaii.
  I have spoken previously on this issue at great length. One of the 
most successful employees I ever had was a

[[Page 23072]]

young man named Rohit Kumar. The Senate was debating an increase in the 
quota for legal immigration, if I remember correctly. I talked about 
the Kumars. His daddy is a research doctor. His mama is a physician. 
His uncle is an engineer, an architect. The point I made was, America 
needs more Kumars.
  I am sure when you are talking about amnesty, there are going to be 
those who will say this has something to do with being against 
foreigners. Well, I don't believe America is full. I was the cosponsor 
of the H-1B program that will let 200,000 highly skilled technical 
people--most of them in graduate school in America right now, being 
funded by our taxpayers--stay temporarily to help us keep the economy 
strong. But I draw the line on illegal immigration. I draw the line 
when it comes to breaking the laws of this country.
  I believe if we keep granting amnesty to people who came to the 
country illegally, we are in essence putting up a neon sign on all of 
our borders saying: Violate our law; come into the country illegally. 
Then we will later pass laws making it all right and you will be able 
to stay.
  I am not for that. I am adamantly opposed to it. Millions of people 
today are on waiting lists to come to America legally. They are often 
the wives or husbands of people who have come here and become permanent 
resident aliens. I am in favor of family unification where someone has 
come here, they are self-sustaining, they haven't received public 
assistance within a year, and they show the financial ability to take 
care of their spouse and children. I say let them come to America. But 
I draw the line on illegal immigration.
  We have somewhere between 5 and 7 million people who have come to 
America illegally. When we passed the immigration bill in 1986, we 
granted amnesty to people who were here illegally. That was supposed to 
be it. Yet now the Clinton administration says they are going to shut 
down the DEA and FBI and the criminal justice system unless we grant 
amnesty to more people. We are getting this sort of bait and switch, 
for which the administration is famous.
  I am sure you have heard the argument. There is a claim that there 
were some aliens here in 1986 who claim they were unfairly denied 
amnesty and we should now go back and let them qualify. These are the 
facts: Most didn't qualify for amnesty because the original law, which 
was going to be the first and last amnesty ever granted to lawbreakers 
in American history--that was the commitment made here on the floor of 
the Senate--was for people who could document that they resided here 
prior to 1982. Now the Clinton administration is saying there were 
people here when we passed amnesty, who did not get amnesty, and that 
is unfair, and let's do it for everyone here prior to 1986. I suppose 
then we can do it up to 1996. We can do this rolling amnesty which, 
again, simply puts a neon sign along our border which says: Violate 
America's law; come here illegally.
  I don't know what the President is going to do. Maybe he is going to 
veto Commerce-Justice-State. Maybe he is going to try to shut down the 
DEA and the FBI, and maybe he is going to try to find somebody to 
blame. Let me give him a name: Phil Gramm.
  It may well be that the President can pass this amnesty provision. It 
may very well be that he has the political power to force us to grant 
amnesty to lawbreakers in return for funding Commerce-State-Justice. I 
want to go on record here and say, I will not make it easy. Any 
conference report that comes up that has amnesty in it, I am going to 
offer motions to postpone, to delay, and attempt to force cloture. That 
is going to take 3 days. Then we are going to have 30 hours of debate, 
which is going to take another day and a half. Then you are going to do 
cloture on the conference report itself, and that is going to take 
another 3 days. Then we are going to have 30 hours of debate on that 
conference report which is going to take another day.
  Bill Clinton is the one moving to New York or Arkansas--I guess the 
location to be determined by the outcome of the election. I am not 
going anywhere. I am going to be here next year. Amnesty may pass. We 
may basically say: Forget about American laws. You come here, violate 
them; we will just forget it. But it is not going to pass without 
determined resistance.
  I want my colleagues to know that when we are sitting here on 
election day and there is an effort to pass amnesty, it is not as if 
people hadn't been told that this was going to be resisted. This is 
profoundly wrong. This is dangerous for the future of our country. It 
needs to be stopped.


                           Medicare Give-Back

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I had the responsibility in working with 
the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee to try to work out 
our differences with the House on the Medicare give-back.
  We passed a bill in 1997 that was aimed at trying to balance the 
budget and trying to save Medicare. We succeeded in balancing the 
budget. We have been in the process since that day of trying to undo 
everything we did. We have put together a package that costs over $27 
billion in Medicare give-backs. About half the package is totally 
deserved and desperately needed. About half the package in my opinion--
I am speaking just for myself--represents things that are bad public 
policy, and it is being done for one simple reason: We have the money. 
Why not spend it?
  I am not going to go down a long list. But let me give you one 
example--bad debt forgiveness.
  Believe it or not, this bill has a provision that says to hospitals, 
if you don't collect your bad debt--remember, Medicaid pays for health 
care for poor people. We have two provisions of Medicare that provide 
taxpayer assistance above Medicaid for very marginal income people who 
are not poor but they have difficulty paying their bills.
  When we are talking about bad debt, we are talking about bad-debt 
incurred by people who didn't qualify for Medicaid.
  We have a provision in this bill where the taxpayer will simply come 
in and pick up 70 percent-plus of bad debt costs for hospitals. 
Collecting debt is difficult. Ask any retail merchant, or ask anybody 
who is in business in America. They will tell you it is hard to collect 
debt.
  What do you think is going to happen when the taxpayer pays 70 
percent of the debt that hospitals don't want to collect and that 
people do not want to pay? They are going to stop collecting. People 
are going to stop paying, and the taxpayer is going to pay.
  To get to the bottom line on this issue, the President says: Look, 
you didn't spend enough money on the things I wanted it spent on, and I 
am going to veto this $27 billion give-back.
  I hope the President does veto it. I think about half of it is 
justified. I think we could have done it for $15 billion, and could 
have done a reasonably good job.
  But my own view is that if the President vetoes it--we are just 
moments now from an election. We are going to have a new President. My 
suggestion is, if the President vetoes this bill, that we simply wait 
until January for a new President--hopefully, someone who will be more 
responsible than this President--and we will take a very serious look 
at Medicare.
  In this bill, with spending of $27 billion, we could not find one 
penny of savings to put in the bill. There is not one thing currently 
being done in America in health care, including a new scam by States 
where they simply overcharge the Federal Government and pocket part of 
the difference--we could not find one thing on which we could save 
money. I find that difficult to sell.
  Finally, there was an article in today's Washington Post by David 
Broder. I don't always agree with David Broder, but I always think 
about what he has to say. I guess if you want to define a serious 
commentator and set it out in a column, you would have to put David 
Broder's name at the top of that list. You may not like what he says 
about you. You may not like what he says about your view. But he 
doesn't say anything that he doesn't think about. I admire that.

[[Page 23073]]

  He points out today in an article that says ``So Long, Surplus'' that 
we are currently--this year--on the verge of spending $100 billion more 
than we said we would spend this year when we adopted the much touted 
Balanced Budget Act in 1997, which Bill Clinton signed. This wasn't 
just Congress, this was Congress and the President. We are on the verge 
of spending $100 billion this year more than we said we were going to 
spend.
  I just want to say that someday people are going to ask: What 
happened to this surplus? They are going to ask: Why didn't we rebuild 
Medicare? Why didn't we rebuild Social Security by putting real assets 
into Social Security--not taking anything out of Social Security but 
putting real assets into Social Security--by taking this money and 
investing it in stocks, bonds, and real assets so we have something to 
pay benefits with in the future?
  Someday someone is going to ask: What happened to that surplus? Why 
couldn't we, when tax rates were at the highest level in American 
history, have some tax relief for working families? Why did we have to 
keep forcing people to sell the farm or business in order to pay the 
Government a death tax? Why did we have to tax marriage and love in the 
marriage tax penalty?
  Someday somebody is going to ask those questions. I just want to be 
on record saying I think it is outrageous that we are doing this. I 
think we need to stop doing this.
  I read in the paper where the President said he is like the Buddha. 
He is like Buddha. He just sits and waits and waits, and Congress wants 
to go home, and the only way they are going to go home is to spend all 
of this money.
  I repeat that I am not going anywhere. President Clinton's number of 
days as President is now short.
  My point is that we have a right to say no. We have a right to say in 
education when we have spent every penny the President said he wanted 
but we want to let States decide how to spend the money--we want to 
give them the same money, but we want them to decide how to spend it, 
and President Clinton says: No. I am going to veto your bill because I 
want to tell States how to spend it.
  I think we have an obligation to say no. If people need schools, they 
can take the money and build schools. If they need more teachers, they 
can take the money and hire more teachers. But if they need other 
things, they can take the money and do that, because they know their 
needs better than Bill Clinton.
  But that is not what the President wants. We spent every penny he 
asked for--too much money, in my opinion. But he said he is going to 
veto that bill because we give the States the ability to decide what 
they need to spend the money on.
  My answer to that is, let him veto it, and then we can pass a 
continuing resolution. Let's have an election. If people want to spend 
this surplus, if they want to spend it on program after program after 
program, if they want more government and less freedom, they know how 
to vote in this election. If you want the Government to spend more, and 
if you want this surplus to be spent on government programs, you know 
how to vote.
  But we ought not to let Bill Clinton spend the money before the 
American people vote for more spending. First, I don't think they are 
going to do it; but, second, that is what elections are about.
  I think we have to quit kowtowing to the President. If he wants to 
force us to stay here and pass these bills day after day after day, if 
I were running for reelection and were in a close race, I would go home 
and campaign. But for the 60-some-plus of us who are not up for 
reelection, let's just stay here in town. And if the President suddenly 
becomes reasonable, we will reach an agreement. But if he is going to 
play Budhha, to quote him, and sit there and see if it will work one 
more time--that is, if by threatening to hold us in session he can get 
us to spend more money than our budget and more money than his budget--
he wants to see if it will work one more time, I want to say no. I 
think the American people would rejoice in it.
  I am hopeful my fellow colleagues will come to the conclusion that 
the President is asking too high a price to see this session of 
Congress end. Too much money. Too much change in permanent law that 
does not represent the will of the American people. I think we need to 
say no. The sooner we say no, the sooner the President will come to his 
senses. And he will for a simple reason: He is not holding a strong 
hand here. He is the one moving off. We are not moving anywhere.
  I think we can come to a compromise with the President, but I think 
we ought to be tired of being run over. I say we should not spend more 
money simply to get out of town. To do that would basically betray 
everything we claim to believe in and betrays the people who are going 
to pay our salary, whether we are in town or not.
  I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             CLEAR CHOICES

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I certainly join my friend from Texas. He 
spells out some things that are quite clear but obviously are not 
talked about very much.
  I was listening earlier to my friend from North Dakota, who talked 
about the differences between the parties, between the Presidential 
candidates. Certainly there are differences. They talk about them being 
the same; they are not the same. I think there are some very clear 
philosophical choices to make.
  Of course, that is why we are here. There is nothing unusual about 
having different points of view. Those points of view are very clear. 
Often we get involved in details and get bogged down in the choices in 
terms of direction and where we want to go, in terms of where we want 
the country to be in 10, 20, 50 years. That gets lost. They are the 
most important issues that we have.
  One of them, in general terms is, what is the role of the Federal 
Government? How extensively does the Federal Government get involved in 
all the activities in our lives? What is the role of local government? 
Of course, most important is the role you and I, as individuals, have 
experienced over the past decade.
  For nearly a decade, the idea was that whatever the problem was, it 
was up to the Federal Government to resolve it. Of course, much of that 
comes from politics. That is a great way to get votes. There is a 
saying: You can teach a person to fish and they always have a fish; 
give them a fish and you will always have his vote. That is the 
political aspect.
  There are some great differences: whether we have higher taxes; 
whether we have less taxes; what we do with the surplus that exists 
now. I think one of the real key issues is the division of authority, 
the division of responsibility between local governments and the 
Federal Government, State governments, county governments. These are 
the issues I believe are extremely important. This is, after all, a 
``United'' States, a union of States, that each constitutionally has 
some very clear responsibilities.
  One of the issues that has been most interesting, and as the Senator 
from Texas pointed out, has caused us to have a slower resolve in this 
Congress than usual, is the idea that there will be a surplus, a $5 
trillion surplus over the next 10 years, $1.8 of that being non-Social 
Security.
  There are several plans. One is to clearly put the Social Security 
money in the Social Security lockbox so it is used for Social Security, 
so that people who look forward to benefits, particularly young people, 
will have some feeling that there will be benefits; they are entitled 
to those benefits. Of course, as the demographics change--and they do 
change very much. I think originally there were 20 people working for 
every one drawing benefits, and now it is three working for every one 
drawing benefits--there will have to be changes in Social Security.
  There are proposals for raising taxes. That is unpopular and not a 
good idea,

[[Page 23074]]

in my view. There is some talk about reducing benefits. Again, I don't 
think that is the solution. One view is to give an opportunity, a 
choice, particularly for young people, to have an opportunity to put a 
portion of the money they pay into their own account, to have it 
invested for the private sector and increase their return. Over a 
period of time, an increase in return from 2\1/2\ percent to 5\1/2\ 
percent is very significant. That is one view.
  The opposite view is, no, we don't want to touch that. We are not 
going to touch Social Security. We don't want to change it. At the same 
time, we have had seven votes here about a lockbox and we have had 
resistance each time. There is a great deal of discussion and debate 
about philosophical differences in the approach.
  We heard the candidates talk last night for the third time. Clearly, 
one point of view is to have a government health care program for 
everyone. I don't happen to agree with that. I think we talked about 
that. We tried to do that early on. We have seen the difficulties. So 
we ought to find an alternative solution. The alternative is to give 
people two choices to ensure health care, those particularly who cannot 
afford it. Those who want to have some choices are going to pay for 
them.
  Similarly, with pharmaceuticals, an issue is to put it on every 
Medicare program, whether people really want it, whether people can 
afford it, as opposed to choices. There are real differences.
  Taxes: Of course, we talked a great deal and will continue to talk 
about the idea of tax reduction, whether spending ought to be what we 
do with the surplus, which is basically the point of view of Al Gore--
the largest spending since Lyndon Johnson and his proposals--or, on the 
other hand, we ought to take a look at being sure we fund and finance 
those things that are there. We do education; we do Medicare; we do 
pharmaceuticals. When we are through with that, there will still be 
substantial amounts of money. It ought to go back to the people; it 
belongs to them; they paid in the money. We hear talk about it going to 
1 percent of the population. The fact is, the 1 percent would be paying 
a higher percentage of the total taxes than they are now. I don't think 
there is much of an argument that people are entitled to some return.
  The marriage penalty tax: Why should two married people pay more 
taxes, earning the same amount of money as when they were single, 
collectively? That is wrong. It was vetoed.
  Estate tax: People spend their lives putting together estates, farms, 
ranches, businesses. It is not a question of not paying taxes. Capital 
gains taxes are paid on the increased value of those estates. But the 
idea that death should trigger a 52-percent tax on an estate that is 
already being taxed is a choice.
  Those are different directions we take. I certainly agree with the 
idea that there are choices and there will be choices in this election, 
whether it be the Presidential election, whether it be the 
congressional election. And I hope each of us, as we exercise our 
responsibility as citizens in a government of the people and for the 
people and by the people, will take a look at those choices. Often it 
is difficult when we get off on a very specific issue and overlook the 
general direction and philosophy we want to take. That, it seems to me, 
is one of the most important things we have before the Senate.
  I hope we can move forward and do our work. We have an obligation to 
do that and do it as quickly as we can. Certainly we want to stay here 
until we have completed the work in the manner in which we think it 
should be completed. The idea that we continue to stall, will continue 
to hold up appropriations bills so they can be joined with things that 
are unrelated, seems wrong to me.
  I hope we move forward. More than anything as we move through this 
very important election cycle, I hope each of us takes a look at the 
direction we believe we should move toward. Should we have more Federal 
Government, more spending, more taxes? Should we have a Federal 
Government that deals with those essential items and funds them 
properly, reduces taxes so we don't have excess amounts of money here, 
returns to local and State governments the kinds of responsibilities 
they have and, more importantly than that, returns to individuals the 
choices they can make in their lives and avoid having the Federal 
Government become the decisionmaker for each of them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Nuclear Arms Reduction

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as we near the end of this Congress, one 
of the profound disappointments for me and for a number of others 
serving in the Senate is the inattention paid to the issue of arms 
control, especially the issue of nuclear arms reduction.
  As we debate a range of public policy issues in this country during 
the campaigns for the House and the Senate and the Presidency, we will 
hear a lot about health care, education, taxes, and economic growth, 
but we hear almost nothing about the issue of nuclear arms reduction.
  It is important to understand what kind of nuclear weapons exist in 
our world and why nuclear arms reductions are important for us, our 
children, and our future.
  The nuclear arsenal in this world totals about 32,000 nuclear 
weapons--32,000 nuclear weapons. The Russians have about 20,000 of 
them, many of them tactical nuclear weapons, some strategic. The United 
States has about 10,500 nuclear weapons. France, China, Israel, the 
United Kingdom, India, Pakistan also have nuclear weapons. We know 
India and Pakistan have a few nuclear weapons because they have 
exploded those nuclear weapons right under each other's chin by their 
borders. These are countries that do not like each other, and they have 
tested nuclear weapons recently, much to the consternation of the rest 
of the world.
  We have a nuclear arsenal in this world that is frightening. What 
does this mean, 32,000 nuclear weapons? Let me put it in some 
perspective. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima killed 100,000 
people. The bomb was named ``Little Boy.'' It was 15 kilotons. It was 
6,500 times more effective and more efficient, as they say--only people 
who are involved in this could use that word, I suppose--than ordinary 
high-explosive bombs.
  The amount of nuclear weapons that exist today in this world is 
equivalent to 1 million Hiroshima bombs. Think of that. The bomb that 
was dropped on Hiroshima killed 100,000 people. We have the equivalent 
of 1 million of those bombs among the countries that possess nuclear 
weapons.
  It is hard for anyone to understand fully what this means. The 
world's nuclear arsenal today has a total yield of about 15 billion 
tons of TNT. That is equivalent to the power of 1 million Hiroshima-
type bombs.
  This Congress has done very little on the issue of arms control and 
arms reduction. It took a giant step backward, in my judgment, in the 
debate over the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. A little over 
one year ago, on October 13, 1999, this Senate rejected ratification of 
the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. The Senate did not hold 
hearings for 2 years on that issue. Then there were 2 days of hearings 
cobbled together quickly, and then the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban 
Treaty was brought before the Senate. There were 2\1/2\ days of floor 
debate, and then it was defeated.
  I guess it was defeated by those who say they do not want us involved 
in the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. However, 160 other 
countries have already signed the treaty. It was interesting. Just 
before the vote a year ago,

[[Page 23075]]

Mr. Blair, Mr. Chirac, and Mr. Schroeder from England, France, and 
Germany, wrote the following in an op-ed piece that was rather 
unprecedented, published in the Washington Post:

       Failure to ratify the CTBT will be a failure in our 
     struggle against proliferation. The stabilizing effect of the 
     Non-Proliferation Treaty . . . would be undermined. 
     Disarmament negotiations would suffer.

  This is from three of our closest allies. Their point was we have 
this struggle to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Who else 
will gain possession of nuclear weapons? Many want them. Can we stop 
the spread of nuclear weapons and stop the spread of delivery vehicles 
for those nuclear weapons? It is a question this Congress needs to 
answer. Regrettably, when it voted on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-
Ban Treaty, it answered no; that is not the priority.
  I wonder how many of our colleagues are aware of an incident that 
occurred December 3, 1997, in the dark hours of the early morning in 
the Barents Sea off the coast of Norway. That morning of December 3, 
1997, several Russian ballistic missile submarines surfaced in the cold 
water and prepared to fire SS-20 missiles. SS-20 missiles have the 
capability of carrying 10 nuclear warheads. They travel 5,000 miles--
far enough to reach the United States from the Barents Sea.
  On that morning, those Russian submarines surfaced and launched 20 
ballistic missiles. Roaring skyward, they rose to 30,000 feet. They 
were tracked by our space command in NORAD, and at 30,000 feet, all of 
those Russian missiles exploded.
  Why did those Russian missiles explode? Those missiles did not have 
nuclear warheads on them. Those missiles were not part of a Russian 
missile attack on the United States. In fact, seven American weapons 
inspectors were there, watching from a ship a few miles away as the 
Russian missiles were launched. These self-destruct launches were a 
quick and a cheap way for the Russians to destroy submarine-launched 
missiles that they were required to destroy under the START I arms 
control treaty they have with the United States.
  What an interesting thing to see, the firing of missiles to destroy 
them--no, not to terrorize or attack an enemy, but to destroy the 
missiles because arms control agreements require that the missiles be 
destroyed.
  With consent, I hold up a piece of metal that comes from a Backfire 
bomber. This is from a wing strut on an old Soviet Union--now Russian--
bomber called the Backfire bomber. This bomber would fly in this world 
carrying nuclear weapons from the cold war with the United States, 
threatening our country. How would I have the piece of a wing strut of 
a Russian Backfire bomber? Did we shoot it down? No, we did not shoot 
this bomber down. I would like to show a picture of what we did with 
this bomber. This is the Backfire bomber. As you can see, we cut it in 
half. Why are we cutting up Russian bombers? Because our arms control 
agreements require a reduction in nuclear arms and vehicles to deliver 
nuclear weapons.
  I have here ground up copper wire from a Typhoon Russian submarine. 
This used to be wiring on a Russian submarine that would stealthily 
move under the waters of this world with missiles and multiple 
warheads, nuclear warheads aimed at the United States of America. How 
is it that I hold in my hand copper wire from a Typhoon-class Russian 
submarine? Did we sink that submarine? Did we attack it and sink it and 
destroy it? No. What happened to the Typhoon submarine was it was 
brought to a shipyard, under the arms control agreement, and it was 
chopped up. I do not have a picture of what was left of it when this 
was brought to drydock and destroyed, but the fact is we cut these 
weapons systems up as part of our arms control agreements.
  This is what the submarine looks like in drydock as it is being 
destroyed.
  In the Ukraine, there is a little spot where you can travel and see 
some sunflowers growing. Do you know what used to be where the 
sunflowers now exist? A Russian missile with multiple nuclear warheads 
aimed at the United States of America. The missile is now gone. Under 
arms control agreements, it was pulled out and destroyed because our 
agreements with the Russians require that to happen. Where there was 
once a missile aimed at the United States of America, there is now a 
field of sunflowers. What a wonderful metaphor for progress.
  I raise all these issues simply to say we have made significant 
progress in arms control and arms reduction, but not nearly as much as 
we must. Here is a chart of some of the examples of what we have done: 
5,314 nuclear warheads have been removed, 507 ICBMs, 65 silos, 15 
ballistic missile submarines, and 62 heavy long range bombers are 
gone--because we, through what is called the Nunn-Lugar program, have 
provided taxpayer funding to destroy the weapons that existed in the 
old Soviet Union, and now in Russia, to say, in concert with our 
agreements, we will reduce nuclear weapons. We have reduced nuclear 
weapons and they have reduced nuclear weapons. It makes a lot more 
sense to destroy these airplanes, missiles and warheads before they are 
used in hostile actions. It makes a lot more sense to destroy them by 
arms control agreements and arms reduction agreements. That is exactly 
what has been happening.
  Going back to the chart I put up, despite all the progress and all 
the reductions in nuclear arms, here is what is left. It is troublesome 
because there are a lot of countries that want to get into these 
arsenals, especially this one. There are a lot of countries, a lot of 
people, a lot of terrorist groups that want to grab hold of a nuclear 
weapon here or there, and have nuclear capability for themselves. That 
is very dangerous. That makes for a very dangerous world and a very 
dangerous future.
  Some days ago we witnessed a cowardly terrorist act of a couple of 
people in a boat, pulling up by the side of an American Navy ship, the 
U.S.S. Cole, creating an explosion that took the life of many of our 
young sailors who were serving their country. I indicated before, I 
send my thoughts and prayers to all of those families who are now 
grieving the loss of their loved ones. They should know the service and 
dedication of their loved ones in serving this country is something a 
grateful nation will never forget.
  But it is a dangerous world. The attack on the Cole reminds us again 
that there are those who want to commit acts of terrorism. It is a 
dangerous world. What if that small boat had contained a nuclear 
weapon? Don't you think those terrorists would love to get their hands 
on a nuclear weapon? Of course they would.
  There are many countries that do not yet have the capability of 
building nuclear weapons that desperately want it. They are struggling, 
even now, to try to get their hands on the arsenal, and on the 
mechanics and capabilities of making a nuclear weapon. We must 
understand how dangerous it will be for our future and for our children 
if we do not make arms reduction, and the development of new agreements 
and new treaties to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons job No. 
1; we must understand how dangerous that is for our future.
  This Congress, as I indicated, decided it would not support the 
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. Lord only knows why they would 
make that decision. It is beyond me. The test ban treaty has formally 
been ratified by 66 states, signed by 160 states. The major holdouts, 
incidentally, are the U.S., China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. 
Six countries have signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and 
14 have ratified it since our vote to turn it down last October. All of 
the NATO states, all of our NATO allies, have ratified the 
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty except the United States.
  We are told by the critics that we not only should threaten our arms 
reduction agreements, including START I and START II, and the prospect 
of a Start III, we should also threaten all our arms control 
agreements--including the anti-ballistic missile agreement, which is so 
important, the center pole of the tent on arms reduction--we should 
threaten all of those

[[Page 23076]]

for the sake of building a national missile defense program. We should 
threaten all of those for the sake of defeating the Comprehensive 
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
  It is interesting that this country has already decided of its own 
volition we will not test nuclear weapons. We decided 7 years ago we 
would not test nuclear weapons. So we have unilaterally said we will 
not test nuclear weapons, but we are then the country that says we will 
refuse to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. That is not 
a step forward; that is a huge step backwards.
  I cannot describe my disappointment at a Congress that turns down the 
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and the responsibility that 
should come with this country considering the nuclear weapons it has. I 
cannot describe how profound my disappointment is. We have a 
responsibility to provide leadership. It is our responsibility. We are 
the world's leader in this area. We must say that we and our allies and 
all other countries must work every day, all day, to make sure the 
spread of nuclear weapons stops; to make sure those who want to achieve 
the capability of making nuclear weapons will not be able to achieve 
that capability. We must do that. That is our responsibility. It is on 
our watch.
  We have a Senate that turns down a Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban 
Treaty but says: Let us build a national missile defense no matter what 
it costs; let's build a national missile defense system no matter what 
its consequences to our relationship with others in the nuclear club; 
let's build a national missile defense system no matter what it does to 
our arms control agreements. Build it, just build it; all the other 
things are irrelevant, they say.
  I disagree with that. We have a lot of threats to which this country 
must respond. Some of them are nuclear threats. Some of them are 
nuclear threats that result from a rogue state acquiring a ballistic 
missile, and attaching to that missile a nuclear warhead, and aiming it 
at the United States. That truly is a threat. However, it is one of the 
least likely threats, I might suggest, and all experts have suggested 
that as well.
  The most likely threat, by far, is not to have a rogue nation acquire 
an intercontinental ballistic missile and fire it at the United States 
with a nuclear warhead; the most likely threat, by far, is for a rogue 
nation or a terrorist group to achieve some sort of suitcase nuclear 
bomb and plant it in the trunk of a rusty Yugo car, set that car on a 
dock in New York City, and hold the city hostage. That has nothing to 
do with an intercontinental ballistic missile.
  Far more likely is a small glass vial of deadly biological or 
chemical agents that can kill 100 million people. Or far more likely, 
in my judgment--if the threat is a missile threat--is from a cruise 
missile, not an intercontinental ballistic missile. A cruise missile, 
which would be more readily available, is a missile which travels at 
500 feet above the ground at 500 miles an hour, roughly, and is not 
detectable or defensible from a national missile defense system once it 
is built.
  So we have our colleagues who turn down the Comprehensive Nuclear 
Test-Ban Treaty and then say, by the way, we want to build a national 
missile defense system, and it will protect against one small sliver of 
the threat, and almost all the rest of the threat will be unresolved 
because we have spent all the money on this one small sliver, which is 
the least likely threat.
  If the attack on the U.S.S. Cole teaches us--and it should --it ought 
to teach us that the more likely threat to this country is a terrorist 
threat by two people on a boat or by someone driving a rental truck 
that is filled with a fertilizer bomb, as happened in Oklahoma City, or 
dozens of other approaches in which terrorists, or others, use their 
skill to try to wreak havoc through terrorist acts.
  My hope is that while this Congress seems oblivious to the value of 
arms control and arms reductions, we will at least have some kind of a 
discussion in this campaign going on in this country about how we feel, 
as Members of Congress and as Presidential candidates, about our 
responsibility to provide leadership to reduce the stockpile of nuclear 
arms and reduce the threat of nuclear war, and especially to stop the 
spread of nuclear weapons to those who want them but do not yet have 
them.
  What is our leadership responsibility? Some say: It is not our job. 
Not now. Not us. It is not time. I do not agree with that. We are kind 
of waltzing along as a country. Everything seems pretty good. The 
economy is doing pretty well.
  We have a great deal of uncertainty in the world. We have a country 
such as Russia with 20,000 nuclear weapons. We have a lot of others 
that aspire to get access to the delivery vehicles and to nuclear 
weapons. We have terrorist groups who are in terrorist training camps, 
as I speak, who would love to acquire small, low-yield nuclear weapons. 
We have command and control issues in Russia on both strategic and 
tactical nuclear weapons. Yet there is almost no discussion here in 
this Chamber--almost no discussion in the Senate--about these issues.
  To the extent there is discussion, it is discussion with a set of 
very special blinders, saying: Let's do the following. Let's build a 
national missile defense system. And let's build it now. And 
notwithstanding the consequences, we don't care what it costs, and we 
don't care what its consequences might be with respect to arms control 
agreements that now exist.
  That is not, in my judgment, the best of what we ought to be doing 
for future generations. It is our responsibility to lead on the issue 
of arms reduction and arms control. It is our responsibility to say to 
the world that 20,000 nuclear weapons in the Russian stockpile is too 
much, and 10,500 nuclear weapons in our stockpile is too much, and we 
need to begin systematic reduction.
  We know what does not work, and we know what does work. What does 
work is the Nunn-Lugar program, in which this country engages in 
treaties and, with the verification of those treaties, helps pay for 
the systematic destruction of nuclear weapons and delivery systems for 
those nuclear weapons. We know that works. We have been doing it now 
for several years.
  I held in my hand, as I said earlier, a part of a Russian bomber 
wing. We did not shoot it down, we sawed it up. I held something from a 
nuclear submarine. We did not sink it, we dismantled it. One day, on 
the floor of the Senate, I held a hinge from an ICBM silo that was 
located in the Ukraine. I had that metal hinge not because we destroyed 
that silo with a nuclear weapon but because we sent bulldozers and 
heavy equipment over there and took the silo out. What a remarkable 
success. Nunn-Lugar, that is what the program is called; Republican-
Democrat; Lugar a Republican, Nunn a Democrat. Nunn-Lugar: These two 
people provided leadership in the Senate saying, this is the program we 
ought to have to try to steer an area of arms reductions compliance 
with treaties that actually reduce the nuclear threat.
  But it is just a step. It is just a step in what ought to be a 
journey for us, a long journey, but one we must stick to and must 
reflect as a priority for our country.
  So I just wanted to come, as we finish this session of Congress, to 
say I have been profoundly disappointed that in this Congress we have 
made no progress on the issue of stopping the spread of nuclear 
weapons. We have a requirement to provide the leadership in this world 
on that issue. We have made no progress on the two major issues: The 
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, we took a huge step backward in 
terms of our world leadership responsibilities; and, second, on the 
issue of national missile defense, we have sent a signal to others that 
our arms control agreements really do not matter very much. That is, in 
my judgment, exactly the wrong signal to be sending.
  I heard the Senator from Texas, my colleague, Mr. Gramm, talk about 
another issue. I can't do his Texas twang, but he said: I am going to 
be here next year. Well, he is. I am going to be here next year as 
well. We have terms in the Senate. I was elected by my State to

[[Page 23077]]

come and serve my State's interests here in the Senate and serve the 
interests of this country. I am going to be here.
  It is my intention, with whatever strength I have, to try to provide 
some constructive leadership, with my colleagues, to say: This country 
has a significant responsibility to address the issue of stopping the 
spread of nuclear weapons. To the extent that we don't care much about 
it, don't do much about it, don't discuss it, don't talk about it, 
don't debate it, in my judgment, our country's future is severely 
injured.
  I hope that as we turn the corner and come to January and swear in 
the 107th Congress, the issue of arms control and arms reductions--
dealing with the stopping of the spread of nuclear weapons and the 
proliferation of both nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles for them--
can become part of a significant debate in Congress because all Members 
of Congress will understand our responsibility and its importance.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________