Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to express how much I am going to miss our colleague, Connie Mack, who retires at the end of this Congress, after three terms in the House of Representatives and two terms in the Senate. My colleague, the first Republican in the history of the State of Florida ever to be reelected to the U.S. Senate, is a valued part of our party's leadership team. He has managed simultaneously to accomplish great things for the conservative cause while also increasing the level of civility in this body. One is tempted to call Connie Mack Reaganesque in the way that he combines an agreeable disposition with rock-solid principles. As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, and as a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, he led the successful effort in 1995 to cut congressional spending by 9 percent--the largest cut in 40 years. Connie is one of the people who has led Congress in forcing the Federal Government to put its financial house in order. He has also left his mark in the areas of medical research and protecting the pristine environment in his home State of Florida. And he has been a warm, amiable gentleman in all seasons and all situations. I served with Connie Mack in the House of Representatives to which he was elected in 1982. That was a pivotal time in our politics, as he has pointed out. America had made a clean break at that time from decades of ever-increasing governmental interference in the economy. He entered Congress as a small businessman, a banker, who understood that the engine of America's greatness is its private sector. Then-Congressman Mack took Ronald Reagan's political banner as his own. As Connie has written, ``It can be summed up in one word: freedom.'' President Reagan inspired him into public service, and he has eloquently defended conservatism's most deeply held principles: limited government, standing up for democratic allies around the world, lowering the tax burden that Americans bear, taming the bureaucracy and the special interests, and returning to citizens control over their own lives. We agreed on public policy questions, Senator Mack and I. But having said that, I also know that my colleagues who opposed him on issues admire and like him every bit as much as I do. Connie Mack is that kind of person. Senator Mack said on the floor of the Senate recently--it was on an important foreign policy matter--that ``we must speak the truth and stand on principle.'' That is what he has done daily. That is the virtuous example he has set. It is what has made him such a good public servant for Florida and America. Mr. President, I know we will all miss our colleague, Connie Mack.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, congratulations to the majority leader, and happy birthday to our President pro tem, Strom Thurmond. I remember on the 90th birthday of Senator Thurmond, a reporter asked him if he could expect to see Strom on his 100th birthday. Senator Thurmond looked him up and down and said: Well, you look fit enough to me. If you eat right and drink right, you ought to be around to see me then. All of us are looking forward to the centennial birthday of Senator Thurmond.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I object, Mr. President, on the ground that I was going to speak at a quarter till.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I ask if we could suspend the request for one moment. Senator Thomas is technically in control of the time on our side. He should be the one who understands this request.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KYL. If we could suspend one moment.

Mr. KYL. If we would determine exactly the time that is remaining and then maybe add to that my opportunity to speak after Senator Durbin.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I withdraw my objection. I did not understand the Senator's request. My understanding was that the minority time would have expired about now. I understand that is not the case. Therefore, I do not object to the request of the Senator from California to have Senator Durbin speak next. I was hoping to be able to speak before noon, but that may not be possible.

Mr. KYL. Let me withdraw the objection.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I did not hear the request.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The text of the Counterterrorism Act 2000 should be familiar to Members because we tried to move it as an amendment to the intelligence authorization bill. We were open to comments by Senators and we made several modifications to the language in order to suit Senators and the Department of Justice. We agreed in the end to withdraw the bill at that point so the intelligence bill could move forward but indicated our desire then to move the bill as a separate bill, which is now what we are doing. Among the Senators who have talked to us is Senator Leahy. We have tried to address his concerns with respect to the bill. Originally his staff advised that if the Justice Department didn't object to the bill, Senator Leahy would consent to its passage. The Justice Department has cleared the bill. After that, Senator Leahy's office advised us they desired to have 10 other changes considered and sent another list of 4 other changes. Senator Feinstein and I agreed to make changes to the bill to accommodate 12 of those 14 requests of Senator Leahy. Yet he still remains in opposition. Under the rules of the Senate prevailing at this time, any Senator can object to the consideration of the legislation and thus block it, which Senator Leahy, I understand, has done. This morning my office received some additional concerns purportedly coming from Senator Leahy. I find them, frankly, not to rise to the level that should take the Senate's time. For example, he objects to a provision, or his staff objects to a provision, that requires the President to report to Congress on the Commission's recommendations about sharing law enforcement information with intelligence agencies on the grounds that this would help set ``a dangerous precedent for blurring the line between law enforcement and intelligence activities.'' A report to Congress on legal authorities on the state of the law sets no dangerous precedent. There are similar types of concerns expressed. We have to get serious about this. At the very moment that our forces are on a heightened state of alert, at the very moment our embassies are telling people not to travel to certain countries because of terrorist threats against Americans, the Congress has before it a bill embodying the recommendations of the Terrorism Commission, and we are not acting on it because, as far as I know, one Member of this body is not willing to allow it to move forward. I plead with him, I plead with other Members, if there are concerns, let's talk about them. But the time is short. Perfection cannot be the enemy of the good considering the nature of the challenge that we face with terrorists around the world and the need to do more about it. This isn't simply something that has been pulled out of thin air to try to deal with this problem. We have embodied most of the recommendations of the Terrorism Commission specifically mandated by Congress to give us recommendations about what else we need to be doing in this legislation. I say to Senator Leahy and any others, time is short. We need to visit. We need to talk about these things. We need to clear them away so we can pass this legislation. After the Senate acts, the House will need to act. They are expected to act with alacrity. For example, Representative Gilman, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Representative Goss, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and I understand the leadership is prepared, if we can pass this bill, to take it up very quickly. However, I don't know how many days or hours are left in this session. I think it would be a travesty, given the events of the past month, given the threats that currently have been made against the United States, for the Congress to ignore the recommendations of the very Commission that we asked to give us advice, to ignore the recommendations of that Commission and conclude this Congress without acting to pass those recommendations to take additional steps to deal with the terrorist threat. Let's leave politics aside. This is a bipartisan effort of Senator Feinstein and myself. It has broad support on both sides of the aisle. I encourage my colleagues to please come forth if they have additional concerns so we can get this done. Exhibit 1 September 22, 2000. Senator Jon Kyl, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kyl: In our capacities as former Chairman and Vice Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, we have been asked to comment on the proposed legislation which we understand you intend to introduce to the 106th Congress (called the ``Counterterrorism Act of 2000''). As you know, our bipartisan Commission concluded that the threat to Americans from terrorism is changing and becoming more serious. To meet this threat, the Commission made a number of important recommendations to the President and Congress in its final report of June 5, 2000. We have reviewed the draft bill and wish to commend you and your colleagues for the job of translating into law a number of the Commission's most important recommendations. We are particularly pleased to see the bill address issues such as state sponsorship of terrorism, better collection and dissemination of terrorist intelligence, a broader strategy for disrupting terrorist fund-raising, and efforts to prevent or deal with catastrophic terrorism in the United States. We hope that this important bill will become law and that Congress and the Executive branch will do everything possible to implement it expeditiously. Respectfully, L. Paul Bromer, III, Former Chairman, National Commission on Terrorism. Maurice Sonnenberg, Former Vice Chairman, National Commission on Terrorism.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we now have more reports of specific credible evidence of planned attacks against the United States--terrorism that must be prevented. We have not done everything we can do to prevent terrorism. According to a Commission that has reported to the Congress, there is more to be done. I have incorporated that Commission's recommendations into a bill. We are trying to get the bill passed. It runs into objections from the other side. Today, I am going to lay it out because there isn't much time left. Earlier this month, I introduced the Counterterrorism Act of 2000, cosponsored by my friend and colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein. This should have bipartisan support. As the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, I have held hearings, along with Senator Feinstein, on steps that would better prepare this country to thwart and defend against and prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. Our legislation will do that by capturing many of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorism. The Commission was mandated by the Congress, and it released its report earlier this year. It is bipartisan, led by Ambassador Paul Bremer and Maurice Sonnenberg. They have a long record--both of them-- of experience and expertise in this matter. The Commission, with 10 members in all, came to unanimous conclusions on the gaps in America's counterterrorism efforts and made extensive recommendations in their report. In addition to Ambassador Bremer, who formerly served as Ambassador- at-Large for Counterterrorism and Mr. Sonnenberg, who serves on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the Commission included eight other outstanding experts in the field: former CIA Director, James Woolsey; former Assistant Director-in-Charge of the FBI's National Security Division, John Lewis; former Congresswoman Jane Harman, who served on the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees; former Under Secretary of Defense, Fred Ikle; former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Special Operations Command, Gen. Wayne Downing; Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Betts; former foreign policy adviser to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Gardner Peckham; Harvard professor Juliette Kayyem, who formerly served as legal advisor to the U.S. Attorney General. In June, the members of this Commission testified before the Intelligence Committee, of which I am a member, with their findings and recommendations. A week later, the Commission's report was the subject of a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. At the end of June, Senator Feinstein and I invited the Commissioners to testify at a hearing of the Judiciary subcommittee which I chair. The purpose of our hearing was to explore the findings of the Commission and clarify some recommendations that have been mischaracterized. So the Senate thought that this Commission report was important enough to hold three specific hearings on its findings and recommendations. Senator Feinstein and I then decided to take action on the recommendations by drafting the Counterterrorism Act of 2000. We believe this is an important first step in addressing shortfalls in America's fight against the growing threat of terrorism. In summary, this is what the bill would do: First, it expresses the sense of Congress that the United States Government should take immediate actions to investigate the unprovoked attack on the U.S.S. Cole, should ensure that the perpetrators of this cowardly act are brought to justice. It directs the President to establish a joint task force to develop a broad approach toward discouraging the fundraising of international terrorists. It directs the Director of the CIA to report to Congress with a response to the Commission's findings regarding guidelines for recruitment of terrorist informants and whether those guidelines inhibit the recruitment of such informants. In effect, what the Commission said is if you are going to try to infiltrate terrorist organizations, you are probably dealing with nefarious characters. They are not Boy Scouts. And you can't demand of them the same clean standards that we would in trying to recruit informants against other governments. When you are dealing with terrorist organizations, you are dealing with terrorists. The bill also directs the Attorney General to conduct a review of the legal authority of various agencies, including the Defense Department, to respond to catastrophic terrorist attacks, and it requires that a report be provided to the Congress. It directs the President to establish a long-term research and development program relating to technology to prevent, preempt, interdict, and respond to catastrophic terrorist attack. It directs the FBI Director to report to Congress on the feasibility of creating an intelligence reporting function within the Bureau to assist in disseminating information collected by the Bureau on international terrorism and other national security matters. It directs the President to report to Congress on legal authorities that govern the sharing of criminal wiretap information between law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community. The Commission noted there is currently a great deal of confusion in this area. We have to get that squared away so the agencies know how they can share information with each other. The bill would direct the Attorney General to report to Congress the recommendations on how to improve controls on biological pathogens and the equipment necessary to produce biological weapons. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress with recommendations for improving security and physical protection of biological pathogens at research laboratories and other facilities. It authorizes the full reimbursement for professional liability insurance for law enforcement or intelligence officers performing counterterrorism duties. And finally, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that Syria should remain on the list of states that sponsor terrorism, as should Iran, until they meet certain conditions. I recently received a letter from Ambassador Bremer and Mr. Sonnenberg, expressing very strong support for the Kyl-Feinstein legislation. I also received letters from the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the Zionist Organization of America, and the Anti- Defamation League applauding the bill. In addition, the American Jewish Congress released a statement in support of the legislation. I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my remarks these documents be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think it is somewhat unseemly to use the Senate floor for campaign purposes with respect to attacking the qualifications of one of the two candidates for President of the United States. I would like to do some business here and suggest that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who use their time to engage in campaign tactics really ought to be helping us take care of a bit of business that I think ought to move to the top of the agenda, such as fighting terrorism in the aftermath of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain and myself I am introducing legislation today that would codify the largest water claims settlement in the history of Arizona. The affected parties have been negotiating for several years, and they are getting very close to finalizing these settlement agreements. They still have much work to do; but I am confident that a comprehensive settlement of these issues will be achieved. Therefore, we are introducing this bill today so that all interested Arizonans and others can have time to analyze the proposed language and make suggestions for changes that will enable us to submit a consensus bill early in the next session of Congress. There are a few major issues that have not been resolved. To the extent that the parties are close to agreement on certain issues, we have included language in the bill that attempts to capture the essence of where the negotiations stand at the moment. For example, although differences remain, the parties are relatively close to agreement on the process to be followed in negotiating intergovernmental agreements. The legislation will have to be changed, therefore, before it is reintroduced in the next Congress, to precisely reflect the agreement reached between the parties. In addition, the timing of the waivers to be issued by the Gila River Indian Community is tied to, among other things, a transfer of a minimum amount of federal funds from the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund into the Gila River Indian Community Settlement Development Trust Fund. The relevant parties recognize that the settlement agreement needs more definition of uses of the funds and the precise timing of the transfers, and that the ultimate legislative language will reflect that consensus. There are other issues that have not been resolved. For example, Section 213 of the bill has been left open for the resolution of the ``Upper Gila Valley'' (including the City of Safford) issues. Those negotiations are continuing, but have not progressed enough to produce language that can be included in this version of the bill. In addition, Title IV of the bill has been left open for a possible settlement of the claims of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. We will work with the parties over the next few months to ensure that, prior to its reintroduction next year, the bill is modified to reflect the ultimate resolution of these issues. Of course, if those parties choose to litigate their differences, rather than settle them by negotiation, we will not include titles for them in the final bill. Mr. President, I am submitting for the Record a statement supporting this legislation signed by all eight members of the Arizona Congressional delegation. I am also submitting a letter of support from Arizona Governor Jane Dee Hull. I ask unanimous consent that these statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the final version of the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development appropriations provides $1 million for the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate a comprehensive Hopi/Western Navajo water development study. This funding was added to the bill at my request, and I would like to take this opportunity to detail the reason why I consider this to be a very important undertaking. Efforts have been ongoing for several years to settle the various water rights claims of the Navajo and Hopi Indian tribes and other water users in the Little Colorado River watershed of Northern Arizona. Numerous proposals have been advanced in an effort to settle these water-rights claims, including identifying alternative sources of water, means of delivery and points of usage to help provide a reliable source of good-quality water to satisfy the present and future demands of Indian communities on those reservations. Cost estimates for the various existing proposals run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, the majority of which would likely be borne by the federal government. This study is needed to identify the most cost-effective projects that will serve to meet these objectives. I have asked the Bureau to hire an outside contractor to complete this study to ensure that a fresh and objective analysis of existing studies and data is conducted. In addition, using a private contractor will enable the Bureau to complete the study in a timely manner without requiring the Bureau to divert personnel needed to accomplish other vital priorities. The study should be complete and submitted to the Senate Appropriations Committee as soon as possible, but no later than April 1, 2002. I also want to assure the parties that this study is intended to be used to facilitate this settlement, and cannot be used for any other purpose in any administrative or judicial proceeding.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first, let me concur with the remarks of my colleague, Senator McCain. I join him in expressing concern for those families who have lost Americans in connection with the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole. I call upon my colleagues who are holding up my antiterrorism legislation to stop holding up this important piece of legislation and allow us to get it passed this year and sent to the President for his signature. The National Terrorism Commission made some very important recommendations about how we should deal with terrorists attacks, and the only response has been the legislation that Senator Feinstein and I have proposed. I hope those who are holding this legislation as a result of this attack will recognize we can't wait for the next terrorism attack. We need to act now. Middle East Tensions

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, with respect to this bill, it is a very frustrating exercise, as Senator McCain said. One of the problems is we have a practice around here of combining bills in such a way that while you want to vote for part of it, you want to oppose the other part. It makes it very difficult to make your decision about whether you will vote yes or no. I wrote to the Appropriations Committee chairman when I first came to the Senate and asked to ``de-attach'' some of the bills. The bill before the Senate is the VA-HUD bill. Everybody wants to vote for the veterans programs, and because of the way those programs are structured this year, I support those programs. I want to be able to vote for those programs. As usual, when it is combined with the runaway spending in the HUD part of the bill, it makes it impossible to do so. It is exacerbated this year as a result of the tactics of the minority. We have not been able to bring bills to the floor, and we have not been able to send them to the President. The result is we have had to combine a bunch of bills at the end of the session, and we find we have to combine the energy and water appropriations bill with the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The problem, as bad as it is in the first instance, is exacerbated. I voted for the energy and water appropriations bill. While there are programs in that bill that I don't support overall, it was an important and good bill. I supported what Senator Domenici was trying to do in that legislation, by and large, so I voted for it. The question is what to do now in a bill, the VA-HUD bill, which is increasing at a huge rate, and which now has the energy and water bill attached to it. I can't pick and choose. I can't take the veterans part out and say I support that, but I don't support the rest of it. I can't take the energy and water part out and say, I support it but I don't support the rest of it. It is not a good way to legislate, as Senator McCain said. I point out, there are good things in the bill. Veterans health care is increased by 6.5 percent, from $19 billion to $20.3 billion. The account for prosthetic and medical research, a relatively small account but very important, will receive a modest increase. There are some important projects in the NASA account that will receive necessary funding. I support that part of the bill. How can I support a bill which has exploded funding in the HUD part of it? The VA part of this bill increases spending by 7 percent. Now, that is an important and significant increase. But the social programs under the HUD part of this bill have increased by 18 percent. I have heard it said when we add up all the spending bills this year, it will be more than any other year in modern history, including the Great Society. We are increasing these social programs in the HUD part of the bill by 18 percent. The earmarking has exploded. We have not seen the final list, but we know it is up to at least $292 million, up from $123 million in the committee-passed bill, and $240 million from last year. That is too much. We have funding in here for everything from renovating theaters to restoring carousels. This is not something the Federal Government needs to be doing. Finally, there is language in the Senate report that suggests that some of my colleagues are wavering from a commitment that has been made by the Senate and the House to ensure that the allocation of veterans health care funds reflects the reality of where veterans live. Four years ago, under the leadership of Senator McCain, Congress implemented the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation System. This was done at the request of the Veterans' Administration. Up until then, the formula that VA used did not take into account shifts in population that are relevant in assessing where resources are needed. In particular, we found in Arizona a lot of so-called snow birds, those great folks who live in the cold States and come down to visit Arizona in the wintertime because it is warmer in Arizona. We didn't have the facilities to take care of all of those people because the dollars associated with their care were allocated to the Northeast primarily, or to the North. The Senate, therefore, voted overwhelmingly to implement this new system that let the dollars follow the patients, so to speak. That vote was 79-18. Yet some who benefited from the earlier faulty formula complained, and as a result we find language in here that will require a study. The money for this study is going to have to come from the health care that otherwise would be provided to veterans. I don't believe the way the language in the report is written the investigators are going to have a fair approach to this because of the one-sided list of items they are to explore. I want to be able to support the veterans part of this bill. I want to support the energy and water component of this legislation, but it will be very difficult considering the explosive growth in the HUD part of the bill. I commend the chairman of the committee, Senator Bond, and Senator Mikulski. They have an impossible task. Everybody comes to them with requests. The bottom line is we have to draw the line at some point. It seems to me this is the point at which the American taxpayers deserve to be represented.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank Senators Mack and Lautenberg for their leadership on this issue. I would like to add that from the beginning of my involvement on this issue in 1998, I have sought to help Senator Mack provide a mechanism which would not only help current victims, but also set in place a procedure to ensure future victims will be able to attain justice, provided blocked assets are held in the U.S. I would therefore first like to associate myself with the interpretation of the waiver as expressed by Senators Lautenberg and Mack. I do not appreciate seeing laws in effect vetoed through a waiver authority interpreted overly broadly. Indeed, the waiver used in this language should be exercised on a case-by-case basis only. Second, I would also like to point out the precedent being set and the reaffirmation of authority. The administration assures us via a private letter that the judgment creditors already holding final judgment will be paid their compensatory awards within 60 days of the enactment of this act. The administration will do so using executive authority to vest and pay from blocked assets. In addition, the Congress statutorily reaffirms the President's authority to vest and pay from blocked assets in the future to help future victims of terrorism. Let me state very clearly that there is no way, based upon the procedure now in place, that future victims will be forced to suffer the prolonged battle with their government that these first victims were forced to bear. I am pleased with the justice being delivered today; but I am especially pleased by the process in place to help any future victims. Hopefully, with this process, the deterrent capability of this law will become more powerful.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to briefly describe one item I was very pleased to see included in this legislation. The item to which I refer is a proposal of mine, the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act. I would like to thank Chairman Hatch and Senator Biden for their cooperation in getting this proposal included in the Violence Against Women Act, which has now been incorporated into the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The purpose of this provision is to guarantee that, when a convicted sex offender enrolls or begins employment at a college or university, members of the campus community will have the information they need to protect themselves. Put another way, my legislation ensures the availability to students and parents of the information they would already receive--under Megan's Law and related statutes--if a registered sex offender were to move into their own neighborhood. Current law requires that those convicted of crimes against minors or sexually violent offenses to register with law enforcement agencies upon their release from prison and that communities receive notification when a sex offender takes up residence. The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act provides that offenders must register the name of any higher education institution where they enroll as a student or commence employment. It also requires that this information be promptly made available to law enforcement agencies in the jurisdictions where the institutions of higher education are located. Here is how this should work. Once information about an offender's enrollment at, or employment by, an institution of higher education has been provided to a state's sex offender registration program, that information should be shared with that school's law enforcement unit as soon as possible. The reason for this is simple. An institution's law enforcement unit will have the most direct responsibility for protecting that school's community and daily contact with those that should be informed about the presence of the convicted offender. If an institution does not have a campus police department, or other form of state recognized law enforcement agency, the sex offender information could then be shared with a local law enforcement agency having primary jurisdiction for the campus. In order to ensure that the information is readily accessible to the campus community, the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act requires colleges and universities to provide the campus community with clear guidance as to where this information can be found, and clarifies that federal laws governing the privacy of education records do not prevent campus security agencies or other administrators from disclosing such information. The need for such a clarification was illustrated by an incident that occurred last year at Arizona State University when a convicted child molester secured a work furlough to pursue research on campus. University officials believed that the federal privacy law barred any disclosure of that fact. Without a clear statement that schools are free to make this information available, questions will remain about the legality of releasing sex offender information. The security unit at Arizona State and its counterparts at a number of other colleges asked for this authority, and we should give it to them. The House of Representatives passed a similar provision--authored by Congressman Matt Salmon--earlier this year. Since then, I--along with Congressman Salmon--have worked to address the concerns that some in the higher education community had about possible unintended consequences of this legislation. I am pleased to report that, in the course of those negotiations, we were able to reach agreement on language that achieved our vital objectives without exposing colleges to excessive legal risks. For the helpful role they played in those discussions, I must thank not only Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and Congressman Salmon, but Senators Jeffords and Kennedy, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. I appreciate the opportunity briefly to describe what I have tried to accomplish with this amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the rhetoric from Beijing has also been accompanied by troubling actions. China has long-range nuclear-tipped missiles targeted at American cities, and is already increasing its arsenal of such weapons. It is greatly increasing the number of short- range missiles aimed at Taiwan, and has taken steps to improve its ability to invade or blockade the island. China has also been the world's worst proliferator of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It has sold ballistic missile technology to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan, despite promising to adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime. It has sold nuclear technology to Iran and Pakistan. It has aided Iran's chemical weapons program and sold that nation advanced cruise missiles. Because of China's assistance to rogue nations and its military advances, the American people, and our forces and friends abroad, face a much greater threat. Mr. President, as we craft effective national security policies for the United States, it's important that we look for warning signs of problems. As Winston Churchill said, in his ``Iron Curtain'' speech in 1946, less than one year after the end of World War II, ``Last time, I saw it all coming and I cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her * * * There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe * * * but no one would listen * * * We surely must not let that happen again.'' Now, more than 50 years later, we live in a very different world. The collapse of the Soviet empire, the spread of democracy and civil society in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, and the emergence of the United States as the sole-surviving superpower could lead some to mistakenly assume that the world is no longer a dangerous place. To the contrary, the threats we face today are even more complex and harder to predict than those we faced during and before the Cold War. We must now be more clear than ever in our own minds about our strategic intentions, and just as clear in signaling these to our potential aggressors. Obviously, China is not Nazi Germany, and it presents different challenges, yet the message delivered by Churchill about the need to heed warning signs is timeless. Many are quick to dismiss the rhetoric from Beijing as empty threats. This could be true, but I believe we must be prepared for another possibility--what if China's leaders mean what they say? China's proliferation of the technology for ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction has increased the threat faced by the United States and our allies. China is increasing the size and capabilities of its strategic nuclear force targeted on the United States. And furthermore, China has tried to use the threat of missile attack to coerce the United States into staying out of any future conflict in the Taiwan Strait. These are but three of the many compelling reasons why we need a national missile defense system to protect the United States and to guarantee our freedom of action. I disagree with those who claim China's objection to our proposed national missile defense, NMD, system will lead to an arms race with that country. As Secretary of Defense William Cohen testified to the Senate in July of this year, ``I think it's fair to say that China, irrespective of what we do on NMD, will in fact, modernize and increase its ICBM capability.'' Of course, that is precisely what China has done. Left with this reality, we have no option but to deploy a national missile defense system that will protect the United States. Frankly, I am disappointed that for the last eight years, the Clinton-Gore Administration has failed to pursue the most promising forms of missile defense and has underfunded the limited programs it has authorized due to loyalty to the ABM Treaty. For example, one of the Administration's first decisions in early 1993 was to return unopened proposals the Defense Department had requested from three teams of companies that had bid to develop a ground-based national missile defense interceptor. In 1993, the Clinton Administration also cut the budget for missile defense for fiscal year 1994 by $2.5 billion over the amount requested in President Bush's final budget, and has continued to underfund missile defense programs every year. I believe that the ABM Treaty is obsolete. It was made with an entity that no longer exists. In the words of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, this treaty ``constrains the nation's missile defense programs to an intolerable degree in the day and age when ballistic missiles are so attractive to so many countries.'' Dr. Kissinger has also stated that, ``Deliberate vulnerability when the technologies are available to avoid it cannot be a strategic objective, cannot be a political objective, and cannot be a moral objective of any American President.'' We must not allow loyalty to an outdated piece of paper called the ABM Treaty to stand in the way of a sound defense given the threats we face. In addition to the deployment of a national missile defense system, it is important for the United States to use the full range of economic and diplomatic tools to halt China's proliferation of the technology for missiles and weapons of mass destruction. I believe the Senate missed an opportunity when we failed to pass an amendment offered by Senator Thompson to combat this problem. I hope this legislation will be considered and passed next year. In addition, we need to ensure that strong export controls on U.S.-made products are in place so we don't inadvertently help China modernize its military. It remains to be seen whether the rhetoric from Beijing will become reality, but in light of China's troubling actions, prudence demands that we take steps to address China's behavior. We ignored warnings in the past and paid a high price. We surely must not let it happen again. Threatening or Bellicose Statements by Chinese Officials or Drawn From Official State-Run Media

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to talk about something this afternoon that I think is of great importance to this country and one of the biggest challenges we are going to face in the coming years; that is, the challenge of how the United States manages our relationships with countries that potentially present threats to our national security. While few would like to admit it, I think China cannot be omitted from this scrutiny, and I, therefore, would like to discuss that question with respect to China today. As my colleagues know, it was not long ago that the bill to grant permanent normal trade status to China passed through the Senate without amendment. I voted for this bill because I recognize the economic benefits it will have for many American workers, businesses, and consumers. That said, it is of utmost importance that we not lose sight of the fact that trade alone does not define our relationship with China. The actions and the heated rhetoric of China's communist leaders should be of great concern. So now, in the aftermath of our recent decision to grant PNTR to China, we are obligated to face the other challenges presented by the communist Chinese government. Time and time again, Chinese officials and state-sponsored media have made bellicose and threatening statements aimed at the United States and our long-standing, democratic ally, Taiwan. They have even gone so far as to issue implied threats to use nuclear weapons against the United States. The question is, will we take them at their word on these defense matters as we did when they made trade commitments. For example, in 1995, General Xiong Guangkai warned a visiting U.S. official that China could use military force to prevent Taiwan's gaining independence without fear of U.S. intervention because American leaders ``care more about Los Angeles than they do about Taiwan.'' An editorial in a military-owned newspaper this March was more blunt, warning that, ``The United States will not sacrifice 200 million Americans for 20 million Taiwanese.'' In February of this year, a state-owned paper again warned the United States against becoming involved in a conflict with China over Taiwan. The People's Liberation Army Daily carried an article which stated, ``On the Taiwan issue, it is very likely that the United States will walk to the point where it injures others while ruining itself.'' The article went on to issue a veiled threat to attack the U.S. with long- range missiles, stating, ``China is neither Iraq or Yugoslavia * * * it is a country that has certain abilities of launching a strategic counterattack and the capacity of launching a long-distance strike. Probably it is not a wise move to be at war with a country such as China, a point which U.S. policymakers know fairly well also.'' Not only has China warned against U.S. military intervention in the event that Taiwan declares its independence, Chinese officials have also issued threats against U.S. sale of theater missile defenses (TMD) to Taiwan. In February 1999, China's top arms control official, Sha Zukang, was interviewed by a reporter for the publication Defense News. When asked if U.S. assistance on theater missile defense for Japan, South Korea and possibly Taiwan could cause damage to U.S.-China relations, he replied, ``If the U.S. is bent on its own way on this issue, it will not, to put it lightly, be conducive to the development of legitimate self-defense needs of relevant countries.'' When further questioned about theater missile defense for Taiwan, he stated, ``In the case of Taiwan, my God, that's really the limit. It constitutes a serious infringement of China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also represents a deliberate move on the part of the United States to provoke the entire Chinese people. Such a move will bring severe consequences.'' (Emphasis added) According to the Washington Post in July, that same Chinese official warned that the sale of U.S. technology to Taiwan for a smaller scope theater missile defense system would ``lead to serious confrontation'' because it would be tantamount to restoring a military alliance between Taipei and Washington. He stated, ``This is of supreme national interest. It will be defended at any cost.'' (Emphasis added) These are not examples of isolated threats. They are a small sample of the bellicose statements that China's government has made recently. I have compiled dozens of such statements and am disappointed at the sparse attention they have received. Mr. President, I have compiled a document containing 14 pages of threats issued by communist Chinese officials. It is by no means a comprehensive compendium of such statements, and is merely a sample. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See Exhibit 1.)

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from North Dakota that I very much agree with him that we should be taking up the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation. I hope he will join those of us on this side of the aisle when we bring a conference report to this body which will report a very important Patients' Bill of Rights piece of legislation. We would then hope to pass it in the Senate, send it over to the House of Representatives, and have the President sign it. I am very much hopeful that we can get such a conference report to the Senate and that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will help us to pass it.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I will be very happy to yield.

Mr. KYL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest to my colleague that we complete the time on the three pending nominees. I could yield back the time that remains on them. Then I will be happy to allow Senator Leahy to conclude his remarks on the time he has under the Teilborg nomination, and then I can comment with respect to that nomination. I yield back all time remaining on the three judicial nominations.