Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Is the amendment already at the desk or does it need to be called up?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, under the previous order, is it in order to proceed to the Kyl-Domenici amendment?

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. So as not to be in an unproductive quorum call, perhaps we could yield back time so we could speak in morning business. Mr. President, I echo one of the thoughts of Chairman Domenici; that is, as we consider amendments to the proposal for a semiautonomous agency that tracks the recommendations of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, I think we need to be very careful to ensure that the spirit of the recommendation, the fundamental basis for the recommendation of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board--the so-called Rudman panel--is not in any way degrading. That spirit, that fundamental basis, was to go directly to the heart of the criticism of the Department of Energy to date that it is incapable of reorganizing itself; that there are too many disparate groups within the Department that want control of the nuclear weapons program, or at least their particular part of control; that what is really needed within the Department, the President's panel said, was a very clear direct line of responsibility from the Secretary right down through this entire nuclear weapons program so that no one else within the Department of Energy, in effect, could get their hands on it; and that there was only one line of responsibility, and it was the Under Secretary with his authority and his responsibility to make that program work. The amendments we have received from Members on the other side--all to one degree or another--picked that apart. They said, well, the Secretary can designate other people outside this semiautonomous agency to be in charge of certain personnel matters, or things of that sort, or we could have the Secretary interspersed between the Secretary of Energy and the Under Secretary in charge of these nuclear weapons programs. Those kinds of structural changes may not appear to be significant on the surface, but each one of them detracts from this concept of a semiautonomous agency, which is the fundamental basis of our amendment. It is what the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, or panel, said was the critical component of any reform to ensure that there are not other areas of responsibility. One of the proposals is that the Under Secretary would have to have field administrative staff administering this program. That is exactly what the Rudman panel said you didn't want. That was part of this bifurcation of responsibility that was creating the problem to date-- too many people having to sign off on too many different things. The point I want to make as we are prepared to vote on whether to proceed--I gather it will be a nearly unanimous vote--with the debate and potential amendment of this legislation, to echo what Senator Domenici said, is that whatever amendments we consider we have to remain true to the basic concept. You can't have a semiautonomous agency in name but have the same old disparate responsibility in practice. That is why we are not going to be agreeing to amendments that detract from the autonomy of this structure--this semiautonomous nature of the jurisdiction of the Under Secretary. That is going to be a critical component of this reform. We are going to have to reject all amendments, as benign sounding as they may be, that detract from that central concept. I hope, if Members are going to present amendments, that they will understand, at least from the sponsors of the legislation, they will be met with opposition if they detract from that central principle. We are going to be standing very firm to support the President's own advisory board recommendations to the President. We hope, obviously, that the President in the end will support those as well. My hope is, if there is no one else on the Democratic side who wishes to address this, that we can get some time yielded so we can address it from our side.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I also note Senator Thompson, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has responsibility for monitoring the organization and providing oversight to the Departments of Government, is also very interested and has provided assistance. I know he wants to speak on this later today.

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I thank Senator Domenici for his leadership on this issue. It was really his leadership that brought this entire matter of reorganization of the Department of Energy to the fore. I appreciate his ability to predict what the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board was going to be recommending to the President because indeed it was Senator Domenici's idea for the reorganization of the Department of Energy that eventually the Rudman board, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board--it was really that same idea that was recommended by the President's board which we have embodied in legislation that we bring to the floor. As the leader announced a few minutes ago, at 10:40 this morning we will vote on whether to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to the intelligence authorization bill, which will include this reorganization of the Department of Energy amendment. This is the amendment Senator Domenici, Senator Murkowski, and I have drafted with the purpose to halt the ongoing losses of our Nation's most sensitive military secrets from our Nation's laboratories. As I look back over the last few months, it seems as if every week brought more news about Chinese espionage at our National Laboratories, about how the Chinese have obtained our country's nuclear secrets. In May, the declassified version of the Cox committee report was released. It painted a sobering picture of the increased danger the United States now faces as a result of the Chinese espionage at our nuclear labs. This bipartisan committee unanimously concluded that China stole classified information on every nuclear warhead currently in the U.S. arsenal, as well as the neutron bomb--literally the crown jewels of our nuclear stockpile. Worst still, the Cox committee noted that China also acquired other advanced American technology, including missile guidance and reentry vehicle technology, the results of developmental work on electromagnetic weapons that could be used to attack satellites and missiles, and radar technology and techniques that may someday allow China to track U.S. Navy submarines while they are submerged beneath the ocean's surface. Chinese acquisition of this technology is particularly troublesome because the majority of its roughly 20 long-range nuclear missiles are aimed at U.S. cities. As we all know, the United States currently has no defense against missile attack. Although one individual at the Los Alamos Laboratory, Wen Ho Lee, has been fired, Chinese espionage at our nuclear labs is presumably ongoing today. As the Cox committee stated in its report, China has engaged in a ``sustained espionage effort targeted at United States nuclear weapons facilities.'' Furthermore, the report notes: ``The successful penetration by [China] of our nuclear weapons laboratories has taken place over the last several decades, and almost certainly continues to the present.'' After the effects of China's espionage came to light earlier this year, the President asked the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, led by former Senator Warren Rudman, to examine why China was able to steal our nuclear secrets. The President's board released its findings in June, calling for sweeping organizational reform of the Energy Department to address what it described as ``the worst security record on secrecy'' that the panel members ``have ever encountered.'' The Presidential panel cited as the root cause of DOE's poor security record ``organizational disarray, managerial neglect, and a culture of arrogance . . . [which] conspired to create an espionage scandal waiting to happen.'' Terrible problems were uncovered during the panel's investigation. For example, employees at nuclear facilities compared their computer systems to automatic teller machines, allowing top secret withdrawals at our Nation's expense. As public pressure has grown, Energy Secretary Richardson has announced various reforms; but these steps have been criticized as too little too late. In fact, the President's own advisory panel said, ``We seriously doubt [Energy Secretary Richardson's] initiatives will achieve lasting success,'' and noted ``these initiatives simply do not go far enough.'' In fact, though the Energy Secretary says he and his Department are on top of the situation, the Presidential panel warned that ``the Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself.'' Instead, the panel recommended that Congress reorganize the Department. That is what Senator Domenici, Senator Murkowski, and I have written legislation to do, to implement this recommendation of the President's advisory group. Our proposal would gather all of the parts of the nuclear weapons program under one semiautonomous agency within the Energy Department. It would separate the nuclear weapons work at the Energy Department from the other things they do there, such as setting efficiency standards for refrigerators. The new agency will have clear lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability, with one person in charge, who will continue to report to the Energy Secretary. This would replace the current tangled bureaucratic structure that has led to the situation where everyone is responsible so no one is responsible. This is the only way to ensure that new security and counterintelligence measures are implemented to prevent future espionage from occurring unchecked. I am pleased that the legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. In addition to Senator Domenici, who chairs the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Murkowski, who chairs the Energy Committee, it is cosponsored by the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senators Shelby and Kerrey; the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and its subcommittee chairman on Strategic Forces, Senator Warner and Senator Smith; the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson; the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms; the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Specter; as well as Senators Feinstein, Hutchinson, Gregg, Bunning, Fitzgerald, and the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott. Despite Secretary Richardson's recent announcement that he is prepared to drop his opposition to the creation of a semiautonomous agency, the reality is that he continues to oppose the core concepts underlying such an agency. Despite extensive discussions that the sponsors have had with the Secretary and his staff, he continues to oppose our legislation. The time has clearly come for the Senate to debate and adopt strong measures to safeguard our Nation and its nuclear secrets. As my colleagues will recall, in May Senators Domenici and Murkowski and I attempted to offer a similar amendment to the defense authorization bill which was met with a Democratic filibuster and a threat by the Energy Secretary that he would recommend the President veto the bill. In justifying his refusal to allow debate or even a vote on our amendment, the Democratic whip termed our proposal ``premature'' and urged the Senate to hold hearings on the measure. Over the past 2 months, four committees of the Senate have held six hearings specifically on our amendment. Furthermore, in the time since we first offered our amendment to the defense authorization bill, the Presidential panel headed by former Senator Rudman has published its report vindicating the approach of our original amendment. It is well past time to fix the chronic problems at our nuclear weapons facilities. Failure to move forward will only further jeopardize our Nation's security. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to rise above partisan politics, not to vote for obstruction and vulnerability but instead to vote in favor of cloture so the Senate can debate this important amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, perhaps we can inquire of the Democratic side if there is no one else who wishes to speak for that time to be yielded. I can take about 3 minutes now, and we can be prepared to vote at whatever time Members are ready.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we have 1 hour this morning to debate a very serious proposition. We are prepared to do that. The time is equally divided. I would have no objection to the Senator from California taking the time from the Democratic side, but we have at least 30 minutes of conversation on our side that we want to use. We need to have a vote at 10:30 today.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield on that?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Carolina yield?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask Senator Jeffords for 30 seconds, if I could?

Mr. KYL. Is the Senator from California aware the external review process and internal review process, the appeal process we have been talking about, applies to all people, to HMOs, too, not just the ERISA plans?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me begin by complimenting Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the committee, for the work the committee has done, and all of the members of the committee, in bringing forth this legislation. I make a point to those who might be watching, this debate, frankly, is not quite as cut and dried, as black and white, as people on both sides of the aisle are attempting to make it. This is a complicated issue. I want to compliment some of my friends on the Democratic side for insisting the issue be brought before the Senate for debate. There are, indeed, situations around this country in which some HMOs have abused their position. In order to cut costs--which we all would like to see--some HMOs have denied the highest-quality care to people under their care. That is something about which we all should be concerned. Just as much, we need to be concerned about how much it will cost to fix the problem. If it costs too much, the cost of insurance escalates too high, too many people will no longer be able to buy the insurance that is offered. We have to be very careful that in working out a solution to what is, in fact, a real problem, we don't go too far. That is where the differences of opinion are. They should be considered reasonable differences between reasonable people. But I fear that too much of the debate has been characterized by finger-pointing and by both sides characterizing the other side's ideas as absolutely off the wall, or that no one could possibly ever think such a thing could solve the problem, when, in reality, there are some common answers and there are some good ideas on both sides. One of the problems Senator Edwards was referring to a moment ago was a problem during the external review process and what would be included in that external review process. There is going to be a change made by Senator Ashcroft and myself that I am sure will be fully acceptable to the Senator from North Carolina. It accepts part of the definition he and others have offered with respect to what ought to be considered. Specifically, among the factors to be considered are not just what the HMO writes as its ``practice guidelines or definitions,'' but also ``recognized best practice'' and ``generally accepted medical practice.'' I know the Senator would be pleased with that. The fact of the matter is if we continue to talk about this we are going to be able to come to some common agreement about what will make this work. We have to be careful it doesn't end up costing so much that it drives people off of insurance plans. I will talk about that for a moment. David Broder, a respected columnist, wrote on April 7 in the Washington Post that the cold truth about health care raises this critical policy issue which is the irrefutable link between health care premium increases and the number of Americans without insurance. He said as we debate these various proposals, we have to keep this linkage in mind. My colleagues on the other side are quick to point out their bill could improve health care, but they are not so quick to admit it will raise costs. That is the problem. If it raises costs too much, some employers will stop offering health insurance as a benefit. That will make insurance unaffordable for more Americans. Obviously, that means people are worse off, not better off. Here are some statistics I think we should keep in mind. The Lewin Group, a very respected consulting group, said for each 1 percent of premium increase, an additional 300,000 citizens will lose their insurance; 300,000 people will lose their insurance for every 1 percent premium increase. The Barents Group, another respected entity, projects a 5-percent premium increase would cause 1.6 million Americans to become uninsured. It further points out the increase would force employees who already have insurance to pay an additional average of $935 per household in out-of-pocket expenses. Most families are not going to be able to afford that. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded the bill offered by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Daschle-Kennedy Democratic proposal, would increase premiums by 6.1 percent. That is the Congressional Budget Office. That is not a biased insurance company study. By these projections of these specialty groups, this would result in almost 2 million more uninsured nationally. In my own State of Arizona, over 34,000 people who are currently insured would be uninsured as a result of the increased premium costs, if the Democratic proposal were to pass. That is why some of the people on this side of the aisle are so concerned about what is being done. Yes, there is a problem, but the physician's first rule of thumb is to do no harm. We are concerned on this side that the proposal of the Democrats is so costly that it would, in effect, remove 3 million people from the insurance rolls. That is a worse result than is currently the case. We believe, and David Broder concluded in his column, by correctly pointing out, that additional benefits for those with insurance are less vital than providing access to basic care for the uninsured. This is one of the reasons why we have provisions in our bill which would provide more of an opportunity for people to actually get insurance and why we think the Democratic version of this bill is just too expensive. What does the Congressional Budget Office score the Republican bill as costing? Less than 1 percent. That is why we believe ours is a better approach. We would not preempt the laws of 50 States, as would the Democratic bill. Here are some of the things the Republican bill would do: First, we make health care more affordable for the self-employed by letting them deduct 100 percent of their health premiums in the year 2000, 3 years ahead of schedule. We give more patients more control over their medical care and make it more affordable by expanding access to medical savings accounts. These MSAs can provide coverage for a lot of Americans who currently are not covered. We require the health plans actually provide the benefits that have been promised. We require the health plans provide care based on the best scientific information available. We require the health plans provide patients with access to their medical records and ensure that the medical information will only be used to provide better care, not to increase their premiums. We require the health plans provide reasonable access to specialists such as OB/GYNs and pediatricians without the need for referral. We require them to remove so-called gag clauses. I worked on that with my colleague, Ron Wyden. We require they be held accountable through the appeals process. This is where I refer back to the colloquy Senator Jeffords and Senator Edwards had a moment ago. It is true that HMOs write their contracts. They are the ones that write the contract. They can't force any employer to contract with them. This is a matter of bargaining. It is a matter of competition. It is a matter of what they cover. Once a contract has been written and an employer has bought that contract and provided coverage to his employees, the question then is in any given case whether or not a particular procedure may be medically necessary. What we provide in our legislation is a two-step process by which this matter can be reviewed. It is by an independent party with the external review. Not by the HMO, not by somebody the HMO picks; rather, it is by an independent external medical reviewer, someone who has expertise in the area in which the diagnosis is involved. This has to be done on an expedited basis so if there is a concern about time, the care can be provided in a timely way. Senator Ashcroft and I will be proposing two changes to the language which I think solves two big problems. The first is the problem Senator Edwards raised. We add to the factors that the external review specialist has to consider not only the party's records and the evidence submitted by the plan and the guidelines offered by the plan but also the external review expert would have to examine the recognized best practice and generally accepted medical practice as part of the consideration of what is appropriate in any particular case. It wouldn't be bound by any of these specifics but would have to consider these factors. Another thing we have added, and I think it is very important, in the event for some reason the HMO would decide, even though it had been ordered by the external reviewer to provide a certain procedure or care, should it decide not to do so, then in that case we have provided a new process whereby the patient will be able to go to some other physician or some other provider and have that care provided by the other provider and bill the HMO that refused to follow the recommendation or the order of the external reviewer. So in no case should there be a situation where after the expert external review process takes place and a particular procedure has been ordered, in no case should the party be denied that care. There is one final thing I want to say. There has been a lot of finger-pointing about HMOs, about doctors, and so on. I think it is important to recognize that HMOs have provided an important contribution to reducing costs and providing quality care to the citizens of our country. It is equally important to note that physicians have done a tremendous job in working under the conditions that were unfamiliar to them--the conditions of managed care--which require them in many cases to submit their diagnosis, plans, and care plans to someone else for review, something they are loath to do. And in many cases they have been overruled with respect to the care they would like to provide. The physicians are not just out to put money in their pockets. They are guaranteed only a certain amount by these HMOs, and it is a less and less amount each year. They are concerned for the good of their patients. I do not think we ought to be constantly pointing our fingers at doctors as if they are somehow the problem. Physicians are fighting for their patients, for the kind of care they think their patients need. When a group such as the American Medical Association, for example, lobbies legislation, they are trying to do what they think is right for the good of their patients. Even though I do not support the legislation they have been sponsoring primarily, I am going to be the first to defend the physicians of this country, and specifically the American Medical Association, for doing what it thinks is right. So I urge my colleagues, as we trade charges back and forth, that we just lower the rhetoric a little bit, recognize there is a problem to be solved, recognize that both sides of the controversy have something important to contribute, and try to come together with an idea that will solve the problem at an affordable cost. That is what I think the Republican bill does. I again commend Senator Jeffords and his committee for coming forth with this legislation.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask of you, or the distinguished chairman of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, what the process is to call up one of the amendments that has been laid down, specifically No. 1195? Do I need to ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business? What is appropriate?

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1195, dealing with the appropriation of additional funding for 617 Customs inspectors.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this is one of the amendments which was offered during the subcommittee markup but which we did not pursue because we had not identified offsets for the additional $50 million being requested, and we wanted an opportunity to try to work it out before the bill came before the Senate. We have not really worked out all of the details of this. Therefore, I am informed by the chairman of the subcommittee he may not be able to support this amendment at this time. It is my intention to at least begin the process on behalf of myself and Senator Hutchison, who hopefully will be present shortly, so we can begin the discussion as to how to find a way to fund some additional Customs inspectors, particularly to be deployed on the southwest border. Before I describe the problem and the reason for this, I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for a really heroic effort to save existing Customs inspectors. What had happened is, the way the administration's budget had been prepared, it was going to fund existing agents out of a fee structure that never had any chance of being passed by the Congress or implemented into law. Had not the chairman and ranking member acted quickly to find other sources of funding, we would have lost 617 existing Customs inspectors, but they were able to find that money elsewhere. As a result, those positions have been saved at least for now. Where that leaves us is exactly even, with no increase in Customs officers, despite the huge increases in the number of people and the amount of commercial traffic crossing our border, particularly in the Southwest. What that means is we are just literally dead in the water despite the efforts of the subcommittee chairman, Senator Campbell. That is why we wanted to find an additional $50 million to hire 500 agents--only 500 agents--for next year to help with this problem. Let me describe a little bit the problem on the Southwest border. As you know, we passed NAFTA. NAFTA has enabled us to dramatically increase commercial traffic between Mexico and the border, our four border States of the United States. But even without NAFTA, we would still have an increase in commercial traffic as well as the daily traffic between the communities south of the border and the American cities on our side. I was somewhat amused that my colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham, was very concerned about the situation on the Canadian border near Detroit. He was lamenting the fact we could end up with a situation where there was a 2-minute delay for every car going through the border checkpoint--a 2-minute delay. Just think what that would mean with the large number of people who wanted to cross into the United States from Canada each day. The reason I had to chuckle a little bit is, if we are successful, if we do get some additional agents, and the chairman of the subcommittee is successful in protecting what we have, our goal, stated by the Finance Committee, is to get to the point where we will only have a 20- minute delay per car at the Arizona border or at the Mexican-United States border. A 20-minute delay every time you want to cross the border becomes onerous, particularly to people who live in the border communities and who every day cross the border for business or for family or pleasure reasons. There are literally hundreds and thousands of people who do that every day. This does not speak of the commercial traffic, which I will talk about in just a moment. The point is, we are trying to get to a point where it only takes you 20 minutes to come into the United States or to go into Mexico. But we are talking specifically about coming into the United States. That is a very onerous situation when you are trying to promote commerce as well as more tourists coming to the United States, as well as families. So this is not something that is a luxury but something I think everyone would recognize is very important. I will talk about some of the numbers because I think it is very instructive. The traffic congestion at any of our border crossing points into Mexico--you just have to be there to see it. The number of commercial trucks, for example, that cross the border annually in my State of Arizona increased from 287,000 in 1994 to 347,000 in 1998. We do not have the personnel to keep up with that congestion. For example, in San Luis, AZ, which depends very heavily on cross- border trade, you can easily wait 3 hours to cross. That is not unheard of at all, to sit there for 3 hours waiting to cross into the United States. This is during times when it is very critical, particularly for produce. Much of the commercial traffic that comes from Mexico to the United States is produce. It does not do any good for that produce to be sitting out there for 3 hours in the very warm sun south of Yuma, AZ, waiting to come in through the border crossing. I ask my colleagues, if they had to wait 3 hours every time they wanted to get someplace on Capitol Hill, how long they would stand for it. Obviously, not very long. We just don't have enough Customs inspectors, however, to staff that San Luis port even to stay open during some key hours. I point out, the commercial point is closed on Saturdays. So we are only talking about general business hours. In effect, what ends up happening is, you get cancellations or reroutes hundreds of miles away to other ports when you have these kinds of long delays. The number of inspectors at this particular port of San Luis has increased. Do you want to know by how much it has increased? One inspector over the last 5 years. That is all. It went from 51 to 52. Obviously, we are not keeping up with the traffic. The same is true of the port of Nogales, which is the largest port in Arizona. There the fresh produce industry is very big, both import and export. It is over $1.5 billion a year. It is now the fifth busiest port on our Southwest border. But the Nogales port does not have enough inspectors. The number of inspectors there actually decreased last year by seven. According to the Fresh Produce Association of America, there have been occasions, even during the low-produce season, where 6-mile truck backups have occurred down in Mexico. Just think about that for a moment--6 miles of trucks waiting to clear Customs. It is not at all uncommon for the truckers to come to the border and literally have to wait overnight before they can find a slot the next day to cross into the United States. And we are trying to encourage trade? We understand that trade benefits people on both sides of the border. Obviously, we are not doing our part when the produce from Mexico cannot come into the United States because we do not have enough inspectors. The lack of personnel on our borders is also a very serious problem with respect to the interdiction of illegal drugs and other contraband. As we all know, the Customs inspectors are really our first line of defense there. I have been on the border where you have these huge, long lines of traffic. Everybody is anxious to get through, and you just have a few ports with a few inspectors there struggling mightily to determine whether or not there may be some illegal drugs or contraband. We have given them some good high-tech equipment they can use, but it still requires manpower. Every week, they are able to stop some kind of traffic in which smuggling is going on, but they do not begin to catch even a fairly significant percentage of it. Just to give you an idea what they have been able to accomplish, between 1994 and 1998 heroin seizures have gone up by 2,078 percent, marijuana seizures up 80 percent. It is clear that more Customs inspectors are needed to keep up with these increasing percentages of attempts to smuggle drugs and other contraband into our country. As I mentioned a moment ago, the Finance Committee marked up its version of the Customs reauthorization bill not too long ago. In it, they approved legislation that Senators Domenici, Gramm, Hutchison, and McCain, and I and other border Senators introduced, to increase the Customs personnel in order to reduce the wait times there to better fight the war on drugs and to enhance commerce to 20 minutes per vehicle. When we can't even provide the funding to get the wait times down to 20 minutes per vehicle, we are derelict in our duty; we are failing in our responsibility; and the responsibility is on the Congress of the United States. That is why Senator Hutchison and I have introduced this amendment to add $50 million for 500 inspectors. We may take one item out to make it $49 million so that the offsets we have provided would be more easily supportable by our colleagues, but this is an increase of merely 500 agents with this $50 million. That is what it costs to get the equipment and the training and get this number of Customs inspectors actually on line at one of our ports of entry. The amendment, as I said, will actually permit the deployment of these agents during the next year to one of these points of entry where they are needed for the Southwest border. Just to focus a little bit more on the specific need with respect to commerce there, should my colleagues be interested, the number of trucks crossing the U.S. border annually has increased from 7.5 million in 1994 to over 10 million in 1998. That is a 40-percent increase. More than 372 million people crossed either the United States-Mexico or United States-Canadian border in the last fiscal year. But even with this huge increase in the crossings, of both individuals and commercial traffic, the number of Customs inspectors and the canine enforcement officers--that is an important part of this, too--has only increased by 540 people between 1994 and 1998. That is simply not enough to keep up with the commercial traffic, let alone the missing of opportunities to seize illegal drugs. Of the 3,400-plus pounds of illegal heroin seized last year, Customs seized 2,700 pounds. Of the 1.76 million pounds of marijuana seized, Customs seized just under 1 million pounds. And of the roughly 265,000 pounds of cocaine seized last year, Customs seized 148,000 pounds. Clearly, this is where the first line of defense is in our war on drugs. I know my colleagues and I love to stand here and talk about how we need to get tougher in the war on drugs. This is our chance. The first line of defense in the war on drugs in the United States is at the point of entry where people attempt to bring this illegal contraband into our country and, because we are unwilling to fund the number of customs inspectors required, we don't have enough people on the border to check every vehicle and, therefore, to find and to stop these kinds of illegal drugs coming into our country. I know the chairman of the subcommittee has talked a lot about the need to meet this need. I don't think there are any of us who don't appreciate what we have to try to do. It is very difficult in a tough budget environment to find the money to do it. What I have tried to point out is that we have to set priorities. If you look at all of the other parts of the budget, I can't find hardly any area in this particular budget that, in my view, has a higher priority than protecting our kids from drugs, than protecting our border from people who are literally invading our country with illegal substances to do detriment to our citizens. What is more important in this budget than that? I, literally, challenge my colleagues who will oppose our amendment, defending appropriations that are in this mark for their particular area of interest, because we have had to provide $50 million in offsets in order to fund this $50 million for increased Customs agents, I challenge my colleagues to come to the floor and be willing to explain why what they are trying to protect in this budget is of a higher priority than stopping drugs at our border. I will be very curious to see how many of our colleagues are willing to come and vote against our amendment because it is taking funding out of something that is important to them, to explain to us why that is more important than this. I am sorry to present that challenge as directly as I am. I think if we are going to be serious about this problem, rather than just talk about it, we have to address this in a very serious way that makes tough choices, that prioritizes. We can't just say, well, it is hard to do, and, therefore, we will try to do it next year. That is why we are so insistent on trying to accomplish this now. There is much more I could say about this particular problem at this time. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is going to speak to this amendment as well. Perhaps the chairman of the subcommittee would like to address the issue now; I am not certain. Perhaps I could make that opportunity available, should the subcommittee chairman wish to avail himself of it. If not, I am happy to speak to the issue more. Let me stop at this point and see if Members might have any other conversation on this amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I just wanted to address a comment to the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Campbell. I made the point when I first began to speak that without his efforts, we would not have been able to save existing Customs inspectors. I misspoke and understated the nature of the problem and, therefore, the significance of what Senator Campbell was able to accomplish. I think in the way I stated it, I said there were 617 additional inspectors that were at risk. Actually, I think the number is closer to 5,000. Had Senator Campbell and the other leadership of the subcommittee not gotten to the problem to find an additional $312 million, as he pointed out, all 5,000 of those existing inspectors would have been at risk because they were being funded by a source which was not ever going to materialize and, in fact, which has not materialized. So in announcing the chairman's successes, I actually understated the nature of what he was able to accomplish. Senator Hutchison and I, therefore, take nothing away from the chairman of the committee, who has had to scramble very hard to try to help find a solution to this problem of Customs agents at our borders. We have expressed, I think, in the strongest terms that we can, our appreciation for that. The chairman doesn't have to remind us of the hard work that he has put into that. We simply are of the view that we have to find a way to do more than tread water to stay even because, as both of us have pointed out, the traffic at the border is not staying even. The drug smugglers' efforts to bring more contraband into the country is not staying even. We have to try to keep up. The modest increase we are talking about is an effort to try to keep up with the nature of the problem that we have. Point No. 1, the chairman is absolutely correct. They fought very hard to get additional money just to save the status quo. But I think the second point we are making is also valid; that is, preserving the status quo isn't good enough. We need to try to find a source to at least find another $50 million for these additional Customs inspectors to at least try to keep pace with what is going on at our borders. I ask the chairman, if there is no further discussion, we could simply defer a vote on this until afterwards. It is my understanding there will be a vote on the Lautenberg amendment in roughly 90 minutes or so. Perhaps we can simply conclude this conversation now and schedule any vote immediately after that.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I have a modification of amendment No. 1195. I note for the record that this modification is cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, McCain, Abraham, Graham, Gramm, Domenici, and Grassley, along with Senator Hutchison and myself.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to produce commemorative items for sale at the Hoover Dam Visitor Center. Mr. President, the Hoover Dam receives more than one million visitors a year. Many of those visitors have expressed an interest in purchasing books, maps, photos, and other memorabilia relating to the Colorado River and the design, construction, and operation of the Dam. This bill would authorize the production and sale of such items, including the minting of commemorative coins from scrap copper that came from electrical cabinets and boxes which were used when the Dam was manually operated. Four to five tons of copper are available for this purpose. Mr. President, this bill not only responds to the public's demand for Hoover Dam-related items, it also creates a revenue source to help repay the cost of constructing the visitor center and of providing guided tours of the Dam and its power plant. Currently, purchasers of Hoover Dam power in Arizona, California, and Nevada are paying for the construction of the visitor center, which ended up costing approximately $125 million, nearly four times as much as the original estimate. This bill further authorizes the Bureau to select a private concessionaire to manage the gift shop selling these items, thereby creating a new business opportunity for a private or a non-profit entity. Thus, this bill would enhance the visitor experience at Hoover Dam in a taxpayer-friendly way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to produce commemorative items for sale at the Hoover Dam Visitor Center. Mr. President, the Hoover Dam receives more than one million visitors a year. Many of those visitors have expressed an interest in purchasing books, maps, photos, and other memorabilia relating to the Colorado River and the design, construction, and operation of the Dam. This bill would authorize the production and sale of such items, including the minting of commemorative coins from scrap copper that came from electrical cabinets and boxes which were used when the Dam was manually operated. Four to five tons of copper are available for this purpose. Mr. President, this bill not only responds to the public's demand for Hoover Dam-related items, it also creates a revenue source to help repay the cost of constructing the visitor center and of providing guided tours of the Dam and its power plant. Currently, purchasers of Hoover Dam power in Arizona, California, and Nevada are paying for the construction of the visitor center, which ended up costing approximately $125 million, nearly four times as much as the original estimate. This bill further authorizes the Bureau to select a private concessionaire to manage the gift shop selling these items, thereby creating a new business opportunity for a private or a non-profit entity. Thus, this bill would enhance the visitor experience at Hoover Dam in a taxpayer-friendly way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I support S. 96, the Y2K Act of 1999. The subject of Y2K liability is an important and timely issue for the Senate to address. As you know, I serve on the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. Earlier this year, the Committee held a hearing examining Y2K litigation and its potential effect on the courts. A study by the Gartner Group estimated that the cost of Y2K- related litigation could reach $1 trillion. The issue of liability is especially important to me. Last Congress, I sponsored the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act, which became law. That legislation encouraged companies to disclose and exchange information about computer processing problems, solutions, test practices, and test results that have to do with preparing for the year 2000. The goal of the bill was to encourage information sharing, which would in turn lead to remediation, which would in turn lead to greater Y2K compliance. Unfortunately, many companies still fear liability, and it is that fear of lawsuits that is inhibiting them from getting done what is needed--which is remediation. The goal of S. 96, like that of the Year 2000 Information and Readiness and Disclosure Act, is to ease the fear of lawsuits so businesses can focus on remediation rather than litigation. S. 96 is the second major Y2K bill passed by the Congress. Earlier this year, the Senate passed (by a vote of 99 to 0) the Small Business Y2K Readiness Act, which became law on April 2. The bill directed the Small Business Administration to establish a loan guarantee program to guarantee loans of up to $1 million for small businesses to fix their computers or tackle other Y2K-related problems. S. 96 enjoys bipartisan support and the backing of a broad coalition of business groups--large and small--including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Information Technology Association of America, the National Retail Federation, the National Association of Independent Business, the Semiconductor Industry Association, to name a few. The bill provides incentives for fixing Y2K problems before failures occur and it encourages the prompt resolution of Y2K problems if they do occur. Finally, I commend my colleague from Arizona, John McCain, for his tireless efforts in navigating this bill through the Commerce Committee and for his repeated attempts to secure its passage on the Senate floor. S. 96 will provide much needed protection against a potential flood of lawsuits against the nation's business community and I look forward to its prompt signature by the President.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is common for Members of the Senate to thank members of their staff, particularly after handling an important piece of legislation. I am sure our constituents realize much of what we do is in reliance on very capable members of our staff. I have never taken the opportunity to talk about a member of my staff before, but on this occasion I wish to do so very briefly, because tomorrow a member of my staff is leaving to go on to another wonderful opportunity. I think it is important to recognize her as someone who embodies really the qualifications and the qualities of staff that all of us would like to have work with us and represent our constituents' interests. Her name is Jeanine Esperne. She began working with me about a dozen years ago when I was a Member of the House of Representatives and served on the House Armed Services Committee. She became my chief legislative assistant on defense matters. She came from the office of General Abramson, who at the time was head of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization at the Pentagon, with rich experience in defense and national security matters. She worked with me as staff person on my Defense Armed Services Committee matters throughout my career in the House. Then, when I came to the Senate, she remained on my staff responsible for all foreign policy and national security matters. That was important, because I began serving immediately on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in an active capacity and had a significant need for someone of her qualifications and experience. In addition to that, I chaired the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information of the Judiciary Committee, again requiring someone with her expertise to assist me in those matters. Throughout her tenure on my staff, she has worked with Arizona companies and interests that have important defense-related concerns and with other people around the country who share a strong desire that we have a strong national defense, including contractors and other individuals with a direct interest in the government process. During this time, the feedback I received from both my own constituents and others around the country was uniformly in praise of Jeanine Esperne for her willingness to listen, her professionalism, the fact she used time very economically. She didn't waste time; she understood that time was important to everyone. She got her job done very quickly with a minimum of excess effort, almost always satisfying the interests of the constituent or the person with whom we were trying to work. It is with mixed emotions that today I pay tribute to Jeanine Esperne on her next to last day on my staff as she moves on to another opportunity. I do so not only because she has worked for me in a way which exemplifies the way most Members would have their staffs work with them, but I think it is important for our constituency to know that we have very fine staff in the Congress, that our work could not be done without that staff, and that when we take the opportunity to praise the staff, it is really to praise their exceptional abilities and the way in which they have served our constituents. In the case of Jeanine Esperne, I certainly express all of those sentiments, wish her very well in her new endeavors, and certainly suggest that occasionally those Members who are so busy doing jobs here take the time more often to thank those staff who, after all, are responsible for so much of our success. Jeanine Esperne, good wishes and thank you for all of your services on behalf of the U.S. Government, and on my behalf specifically. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. In that event, I suggest that Senator Murkowski yield the remainder of his time to Senator Hutchinson--he has comments to make-- unless Senator Murkowski has further comments.