Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. KYL. How much time does the Senator wish?

Mr. KYL. I ask that the Senator from Oklahoma conclude his remarks in 4 minutes, after which the time would go to that side.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a series of letters be printed at an appropriate place in the Record. These are letters from the six former secretaries of defense, former majority leader, Bob Dole, and Dr. Edward Teller, among others.

Mr. KYL. Since the Senator says I know certain things, may I simply interject to make this point: As Senator Biden is well aware, it is important for Senators to quote only open-source material, such as newspapers, and never to refer to matters in the Intelligence Committee which are classified. So this Senator will refrain from quoting classified material and will be bound by our rules only to refer to articles and newspapers, such as the Washington Times.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have no objection to that. Senator Allard is waiting. Unfortunately, about three people have gone ahead of him. He has also presided. Maybe he can have some time.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, may I inquire about the time remaining on both sides. I think we are roughly equal at this point.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a letter dated October 6 to the majority and minority leaders signed by two former Secretaries of Energy, John Herrington and James Watkins, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. In this letter, the two former Secretaries of Energy urge the Senate to reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I also note, part of my submission for the Record earlier was letters from various former public officials who urged rejection of the treaty. Behind me is a chart detailing who some of these people are. I thought it important, since I didn't read the entire list to Senator Biden earlier, to acknowledge who some of these people are. These are people who believe it would be a bad idea for this treaty to be ratified and who speak from experience based upon their positions in the U.S. Government. I mentioned earlier the six former Secretaries of Defense. Secretary Schlesinger testified, and his testimony was just cited by Senator Byrd as important testimony in opposition to the treaty. People such as Dick Cheney and others are in that list of six. Secretary Weinberger testified, as well. In addition to that, four former National Security Advisers; in addition to that, four former Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency. In addition to that, four former Directors of the National Laboratories--this is important because once an individual is no longer in the position of the lab Director, accountable to the Congress, to the Secretary of Energy, and to the President, that person is free to speak his mind--have been very clear about the reasons the National Laboratory Stockpile Stewardship Program cannot be an adequate substitute for testing, in addition to the former Secretaries of Energy I mentioned, former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the former Commanders of the U.S. Strategic Command. Let me also make a point I think the majority leader tried to make a few minutes ago but several people have reiterated a contrary view; that is, we have not had enough time to learn about this treaty. The message from the President of the United States transmitting this treaty was dated September 23, 1997, but the treaty was open for signature and signed by the United States a year before that, September 24, 1996. So the President waited over a year to send this treaty to the Senate for its action. Not long after that, however, the President began urging us to take it up, in two State of the Union Messages and in a variety of comments thereafter. I took the President at his word, and I began studying the treaty, and I began talking to experts. I daresay there are not very many people in this body who know more about the treaty, as Senators, than I do. I know people such as Senator Biden and Senator Levin have done the same thing. They went to school and they became experts on this treaty. I recognize them as having an enormous quantity of information about it. I did, too, for a couple of years. All Senators had that opportunity. If they listened to the President, he was asking them to understand it and to bring it up. There have been a variety of hearings, not just in the Foreign Relations Committee but in other committees as well. I have committee reports here. Let's see; this is from the Committee on Governmental Affairs. I have three different reports here, I believe: March 18, 1998; October 27, 1997; February 12, 1997; the Armed Services Committee hearings that have been specifically held, and so on. Of course, our knowledge does not need to exclusively come from hearings; we do have the ability to read and to talk to experts. The point is, we have had ample opportunity to learn about this treaty. The problem is, there are many in this body who for months demanded a vote, but what they really want is to only have a vote when they think they can win. They do not want a vote when they are going to lose. That is why you had this cacophony of voices calling for a vote and all of a sudden, when the majority leader accommodated them and they realized they did not have the votes to win, they began saying: Oh, we need more time. We need to put this off. We need to study it more. There was ample opportunity to study it. I spent a lot of time studying this treaty. I suppose I could have been doing something else, but I spent the time studying it. And every one of my colleagues could have done the same. Finally, there is this notion, the President says: This is the longest-sought, hardest-fought prize in arms control history. Every President has sought this. That is simply not true. Let's go through the record. President Eisenhower, who imposed a testing moratorium for 3 years, supported the idea of a test ban treaty. But his test ban treaty would have been of limited duration, 4 to 5 years, and would have allowed for low-yield testing. As Senator Byrd noted a moment ago, two of the most salient points of former Secretary Schlesinger's testimony were to impress upon us the fact that this is a treaty in perpetuity that the President is asking us to sign. President Clinton's test ban treaty is for a zero yield, and everyone acknowledges you cannot verify a zero- yield treaty. That was not the treaty President Eisenhower wanted, so let's not say this all started with President Eisenhower and this is a treaty he wanted. During the Kennedy administration, the Limited Test Ban Treaty which banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, space, or underwater, was negotiated. But there was no serious effort to negotiate a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as of the kind President Clinton submitted. Incidentally, the Johnson administration took the same position as the Kennedy administration. President Nixon's administration negotiated the Threshold Test Ban Treaty but also did not make any attempt to negotiate a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of the kind President Clinton has submitted. There was no activity on the subject during the Ford administration. During the Carter administration--and Secretary Schlesinger has presented some very interesting comments on this--the Peaceful Nuclear Explosion Treaty was signed and consideration was given to a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, though the United States at that time was seeking a 10-year treaty where yields of up to 2 kilotons would have been permissible. Neither President Reagan nor President Bush pursued a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In fact, responding to the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell prohibition on testing in the 1993 Energy and Water Appropriations Act, here is what President Bush said to the Congress: The administration has concluded that it is not possible to develop a test program within the constraints of Public Law 102-377 that would be fiscally, militarily and technically responsible. The requirement to maintain and improve the safety of our nuclear stockpile, and to evaluate and maintain the reliability of U.S. forces, necessitates continued nuclear testing for those purposes, albeit at a modest level, for the foreseeable future. The administration strongly urges the Congress to modify this legislation urgently in order to permit the minimum number and kind of underground nuclear tests that the United States requires, regardless of the action of other states, to retain safe, reliable, although dramatically reduced deterrent forces. So much for the proposition that all of the Presidents from Eisenhower through Bush support the notion of the Clinton forever zero yield Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is simply not true. There is another important point that President Kennedy made. President Kennedy was asked to comment on his experience with the 1958- 1961 test moratorium. The reason this is important is, of course, we are looking at an 8-year moratorium on testing already here in the United States. This treaty would impose upon us a moratorium in perpetuity, with only one possible way out, and that is, it would be at least theoretically possible for the United States, if it believed, in its supreme national interest, it was required to do so--for the President to, in effect, step out of the treaty for the purpose of conducting one or more tests. Here is what President Kennedy had to say about the difficulty of doing that. He said: Some may urge us to try a moratorium again, keeping our preparations to test in a constant state of readiness. But in actual practice, particularly in a society of free choice, we cannot keep top-flight scientists concentrating on the preparation of an experiment which may or may not take place or on an uncertain date in the future, nor can large technical laboratories be kept fully alert on a standby basis, waiting for some other nation to break an agreement. This is not merely difficult or inconvenient; we have explored this alternative thoroughly and found it impossible of execution. That is what scientists tell me would be the result of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We already know it would take at least 2 years to regenerate the support for a nuclear test at the Nevada Test Site. There is already significant testimony on the record that it would be exceedingly difficult to get the scientific expertise concentrated for the development of such a test. There is also significant comment on the fact that, obviously, this would send a very dangerous signal to our potential adversaries because there is only one reason to conduct such a test. Under the terms of the safeguard President Clinton has offered up here, it would be in the event of concern about the safety or reliability of our stockpile. So the whole world would know, if the United States began preparations to conduct a test, we had a problem. That would be a problem. One of my friends at one of the National Laboratories has in fact said, regardless of our need to do so--although we can always gain significant scientific knowledge from a test--we ought to remain capable of conducting a test and have at least one a year, just so we avoid the problem of nations believing we have problems with our stockpile. That way, we would not only have the benefit of a test but we would never signal to anyone in the outside world we were testing because we had a problem. There is another reason to have a test. When the United States began thinking about this moratorium, there was a request of the laboratories to design a way to substitute for testing, and the Stockpile Stewardship Program came from that request. But as part of that, the Directors of the laboratories recommended that a series of 10 tests a year for 10 years be conducted to validate the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Those tests have never been held. One of the reasons there is great discomfort with the notion that the Stockpile Stewardship Program could actually be a substitute for testing is that it has never been validated. I note that some of our allies, countries Senator Biden referred to earlier such as France, that conducted tests within the last 3 years, as well as some that perhaps would not be categorized as allies, such as China, that also conducted tests within the last 3 years, as well as other countries, could well have concluded--and part of this would have to get into classified information--could well have concluded that it was in their national interests to conduct tests in order to validate scientific experiments, in order to prepare for a long period of time in which they could not test, in order to develop warheads of the kind the Russians have developed, which are very robust and which can be reproduced every several years without the necessity of testing, something which the United States never did. Our moratorium was imposed, in effect, in the middle of our nuclear development program. Our weapons have all been designed to be replaced with new designs on the assumption that there would always be testing. We never did this testing to get us to the point where we could prepare for a moratorium, let alone an absolute ban on any testing in perpetuity. That is why the argument is absolutely false some make that we need to freeze in our advantage before others acquire the weapon; exactly the opposite is the case. Some countries have developed what they believe will hold them for a long period of time in the future based on testing, while the United States rather abruptly stopped its program with President Bush and others suggesting we should go forward with testing for a variety of reasons, but we did not do so. We are now caught in the position where we have aging stockpiles with several of our warheads exceeding their shelf life, with all the problems attendant with that, and a moratorium in which we have not tested for 8 years and a prospect we would have a treaty to bind us, never to test again, never having validated the substitute program. This is a reason why I think those who heard testimony from lab Directors, from people such as Johnny Foster and Robert Barker and other experts who have been involved in this area for years, have been rather shocked at what they have heard and why many of them have suggested they think they need to hear more about this. There is, indeed, a great body of scientific evidence that suggests it could be a very bad thing for the United States to adopt this zero- yield test in perpetuity, and no amount of more time is going to change that result. That is why, again, there is no reason to extend the time of this treaty in order to refute these scientific facts. These scientists are not going to change their views. The science does not change. Plutonium and uranium radioactively decay. That is a scientific principle, so there is some constant here and nothing, including the passage of time, is going to change that. Mr. President, I ask Senator Warner if he wants to make a comment.

Mr. KYL. I certainly do not want to do that. There is one thing Senator Biden said with which I must take a little bit of issue. He noted we have some 6,000 warheads in our inventory, that this was a lot of warheads and certainly they would not all atrophy; in any event, we would always have enough, even if they were not all good. I think it important to understand what our stockpile consists of right now, again, without getting into classified material. There are nine types of nuclear weapons in our arsenal. We used to have many more than that. We used to have redundant systems. Now, however, we have nine types, each of which are different. They have a different mission, and they are delivered on different delivery vehicles or by means of different platforms. The total number of warheads can be divided, in effect, by nine. If any one or two or three of those classes of warheads have defects in them, it is a matter that affects all of the warheads of that category. It is not as if you have one car that is a lemon. Instead, it is as if you have a car that has to be recalled because every one of that make and model has the same problem. That is the way we have found our weapon defects to have existed in the past. Let's say one-third of the weapon types have some defect. Roughly, that means about one-third of the weapons. What that means is that about one-third of the ability of the United States to respond with respect to certain targets would be inhibited, but more than that, there may be many targets that are unique to that particular kind of warhead against which we have no capability. It is not as if these warheads are fungible and we can throw any of them at any target with any delivery system. Each one has a specific purpose, and it is delivered on a specific platform. That is why we should not be so cavalier about concluding that since we have a lot of warheads we, in effect, can roll the dice. I have a final point, since Senator Warner is about ready, on a comment made by my friend, Senator Specter, who talked about the chain reaction if India and Pakistan should begin to detonate these devices and how can we ask them to sign on to this treaty if we are not willing to set the norm, set the standard of signing. I remind my colleagues, for 8 years we have been setting the norm. We have had a moratorium; we are not testing. Did that stop India? Did it stop Pakistan? Has it stopped any other number of countries that believe in their national interest they want to acquire these weapons? No. Are many of these countries signatories to the NPT? Yes. They have already forsworn these weapons. We would be asking them to also forswear the testing of weapons that we now know they already have. I believe we ought to do what is in the best interest of the United States for our own security and not get into this business of questioning what other people in the world will think of us if we do not go along with what they think is a great idea. Internationally, there are a lot of great ideas in the United Nations among countries, some of whom are not friendly and some are, but the United States has tried to be a leader in the world. I suggest we lead best if we go back to the drawing board and try to do this right, perhaps along the lines of some previous Presidents, rather than the unique way President Clinton proposes to do it with the zero-yield testing in perpetuity.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program II and Local Medical Emergency Reimbursement Act. Senators McCain, Hutchison, Domenici, Bingaman, and Feinstein join me. Border counties and other jurisdictions throughout the Southwest are incurring overwhelming costs to process and incarcerate illegal immigrants who commit crimes. Hospitals are also bearing steep costs to treat illegal immigrants for medical emergencies. Regarding the first issue, it should be pointed out that, when states and localities do not have the resources to deal with criminal illegal immigrants, disasters can happen. Just last week, it was discovered that illegal immigrants who, in some cases, had committed serious crimes in Maricopa County, Arizona--including first degree murder in one of the cases--were permitted to post bond to the county, were then released to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and were then allowed to return to their home country. Needless to say, those cases did not go to trial. Because the alleged criminal aliens never returned for their court date, justice was not served. I continue to work toward better cooperation between the INS and local criminal justice systems, to make sure that illegal immigrants who are charged with crimes prosecuted under state law--and murder is prosecuted under state law--are held in Arizona. That means before, during, and after trial. It means, if the person is convicted, serving out his time in Arizona. I will continue to work toward full funding for the federal program Congress created in 1995 to reimburse states and localities for the costs of incarcerating criminal illegal immigrants, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). Incarceration of criminal illegal immigrants costs state and local governments over $1 billion a year. Last year's Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill provided $585 million for the program, and reimbursed states approximately 39 cents on the dollar for such costs. I will work to increase federal funding for SCAAP, and will work to ensure that the FY 2000 C-J-S funding bill maintains, at the very least, the FY 1999 funding level of $585 million. It is my hope that the bill I am introducing today will further enhance the ability of states and localities to prevent the release of criminal illegal immigrants by giving them the resources they need, not only to incarcerate but to process and sentence such individuals. My bill creates SCAAP II and provides an additional authorization of $200 million per year between 2001 and 2004 to states and localities for such expenditures. When illegal immigrants commit crimes and are then caught, they drain the budgets of a locality's sheriff, justice court, county attorney, clerk of the court, superior and juvenile court, and juvenile detention departments, as well as using up a county's indigent defense budget. And, even though illegal immigration is a federal responsibility, states and local jurisdictions all along the southwestern border have incurred 100 percent of specifically processing-related costs to date. This bill will change that. Unfortunately, we do not yet know the full financial burden the states and localities are bearing. I am hopeful that the FY 2000 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill conference report will include funding for a study that will lay out realistic estimates of these costs. What is known is that such expenditures comprise approximately 39 percent of the aforementioned budgets of just one Arizona county, Santa Cruz, with a population of just 36,000 residents. As a recent report conducted by the University of Arizona detailed, ``such illegal entry pressures place inequitable demands on the resources and taxpayers of Santa Cruz County.'' Other counties throughout the Southwest are in the same boat. Maricopa County, Arizona, for example, incurs costs of $9 million to incarcerate illegal criminal immigrants. It is unclear what its costs are to process and sentence such aliens. Cochise County incurs costs of approximately $406,000 per year to incarcerate criminal illegal immigrants and, therefore, must also incur significant costs to process and sentence these individuals. Providing resources to states and localities with such burdens will help prevent the release of criminals onto our nation's streets, and is clearly the financial responsibility of the federal government. The second issue addressed by this bill is the burden borne by hospitals in southwestern states. The federal government is obligated to fully reimburse states, localities, and hospitals for the emergency medical treatment of illegal immigrants. According to a preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate provided two years ago, the total annual cost to treat illegal immigrants for medical emergencies is roughly $2.8 billion a year. It is roughly estimated that the federal government reimburses states for approximately half of those costs. That means states must pay the remaining $1.4 billion. The state of Arizona estimates that it incurs unreimbursed costs of $20 million annually to treat undocumented immigrants on an emergency basis. This legislation will provide states, localities, and hospitals an additional $200 million per year to help absorb the costs of adherence to federal law, under which all individuals, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay, must be provided with medical treatment in a medical emergency. I have heard from individual doctors in Arizona, and hospitals as well, conveying their frustration in the face of these daunting costs. Mr. President, I hope we can address these very pressing issues in the coming months, and that Members will consider joining my cosponsors and me in support of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program II and Local Medical Emergency Reimbursement Act. Senators McCain, Hutchison, Domenici, Bingaman, and Feinstein join me. Border counties and other jurisdictions throughout the Southwest are incurring overwhelming costs to process and incarcerate illegal immigrants who commit crimes. Hospitals are also bearing steep costs to treat illegal immigrants for medical emergencies. Regarding the first issue, it should be pointed out that, when states and localities do not have the resources to deal with criminal illegal immigrants, disasters can happen. Just last week, it was discovered that illegal immigrants who, in some cases, had committed serious crimes in Maricopa County, Arizona--including first degree murder in one of the cases--were permitted to post bond to the county, were then released to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and were then allowed to return to their home country. Needless to say, those cases did not go to trial. Because the alleged criminal aliens never returned for their court date, justice was not served. I continue to work toward better cooperation between the INS and local criminal justice systems, to make sure that illegal immigrants who are charged with crimes prosecuted under state law--and murder is prosecuted under state law--are held in Arizona. That means before, during, and after trial. It means, if the person is convicted, serving out his time in Arizona. I will continue to work toward full funding for the federal program Congress created in 1995 to reimburse states and localities for the costs of incarcerating criminal illegal immigrants, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). Incarceration of criminal illegal immigrants costs state and local governments over $1 billion a year. Last year's Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill provided $585 million for the program, and reimbursed states approximately 39 cents on the dollar for such costs. I will work to increase federal funding for SCAAP, and will work to ensure that the FY 2000 C-J-S funding bill maintains, at the very least, the FY 1999 funding level of $585 million. It is my hope that the bill I am introducing today will further enhance the ability of states and localities to prevent the release of criminal illegal immigrants by giving them the resources they need, not only to incarcerate but to process and sentence such individuals. My bill creates SCAAP II and provides an additional authorization of $200 million per year between 2001 and 2004 to states and localities for such expenditures. When illegal immigrants commit crimes and are then caught, they drain the budgets of a locality's sheriff, justice court, county attorney, clerk of the court, superior and juvenile court, and juvenile detention departments, as well as using up a county's indigent defense budget. And, even though illegal immigration is a federal responsibility, states and local jurisdictions all along the southwestern border have incurred 100 percent of specifically processing-related costs to date. This bill will change that. Unfortunately, we do not yet know the full financial burden the states and localities are bearing. I am hopeful that the FY 2000 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill conference report will include funding for a study that will lay out realistic estimates of these costs. What is known is that such expenditures comprise approximately 39 percent of the aforementioned budgets of just one Arizona county, Santa Cruz, with a population of just 36,000 residents. As a recent report conducted by the University of Arizona detailed, ``such illegal entry pressures place inequitable demands on the resources and taxpayers of Santa Cruz County.'' Other counties throughout the Southwest are in the same boat. Maricopa County, Arizona, for example, incurs costs of $9 million to incarcerate illegal criminal immigrants. It is unclear what its costs are to process and sentence such aliens. Cochise County incurs costs of approximately $406,000 per year to incarcerate criminal illegal immigrants and, therefore, must also incur significant costs to process and sentence these individuals. Providing resources to states and localities with such burdens will help prevent the release of criminals onto our nation's streets, and is clearly the financial responsibility of the federal government. The second issue addressed by this bill is the burden borne by hospitals in southwestern states. The federal government is obligated to fully reimburse states, localities, and hospitals for the emergency medical treatment of illegal immigrants. According to a preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate provided two years ago, the total annual cost to treat illegal immigrants for medical emergencies is roughly $2.8 billion a year. It is roughly estimated that the federal government reimburses states for approximately half of those costs. That means states must pay the remaining $1.4 billion. The state of Arizona estimates that it incurs unreimbursed costs of $20 million annually to treat undocumented immigrants on an emergency basis. This legislation will provide states, localities, and hospitals an additional $200 million per year to help absorb the costs of adherence to federal law, under which all individuals, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay, must be provided with medical treatment in a medical emergency. I have heard from individual doctors in Arizona, and hospitals as well, conveying their frustration in the face of these daunting costs. Mr. President, I hope we can address these very pressing issues in the coming months, and that Members will consider joining my cosponsors and me in support of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. KYL. May I ask my colleague from Pennsylvania, is there another speaker on our side who wishes to speak next or would we go to the other side?

Mr. KYL. Fine. I will take just another minute and a half of the 2 minutes of which I asked. Just to summarize the point here, there are a lot of good ideas that come out of Washington, DC. We provide money for them. But we should not presume that everything we come up with here fits every single school district in the country. There may be needs in one area that are not shared in another area; whereas one school district may need teachers, another school district may say, down the road we may need to hire more teachers, but what is more needed is a better math program or a better history program or whatever it might be. We ought to give them that chance--that is all the Gorton amendment says--instead of saying they can only spend the money on one thing. The Gorton amendment provides that they can spend the money on a variety of things. The application is simple. They simply set their goals, and a year later they demonstrate whether they have met their goals. If they have, they can re-up for the money. If they have not, they cannot. So it is a very goal-oriented program, and they are the ones who set the goals. I urge my colleagues to support the Gorton amendment to the Murray amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we should step back from the rhetoric for a moment and calmly ask the question: What is this debate all about? It is about two simple ideas. They are competing ideas, and neither one is necessarily a bad idea. The question is which one is better. On the one hand, we have an idea that comes from Washington, DC. It is not a bad idea. It comes from very smart people. The idea is that a lot of school districts in this country could benefit by having the money to hire more teachers. There is nothing wrong with that. Washington, DC, has a lot of bright people, and sometimes some good ideas come from them. But every school district in this country is different. What the Kennedy-Murray amendment will provide for is only one program, only one idea, and that is that Federal money would be available for one purpose and one purpose only: the hiring of more teachers. As I said, it is a fine idea; it is good for many but not all. That is where the other idea comes into play. The other idea is that the same amount of money should be made available to the local school districts to be used not just to hire more teachers but for any other legitimate purpose which they believe would best meet the needs of their students based upon their circumstances. It is a matter of choice. A school district may well decide that what they need more than anything else is to get new books for their library or new computers for the kids or to develop a new reading program; maybe, in view of what is happening to some schools around the country today, to make sure their schools are safer, to provide new antidrug or drug education programs in the schools. We believe strongly that every parent and child in this country should be guaranteed a safe and drug-free, quality education for themselves or their children. What that means in a school district in Brooklyn, NY, may be very different from what it means in a school district in rural Arizona, for example. So what the amendment propounded by Senator Gorton says is: Let's let the local school districts decide what to do with this money. The people in Washington may well be right that it ought to be used to hire teachers, but maybe the local folks have a better idea for their school district as to what they think that money should be used for. I ask my colleagues on the other side, what is the matter with choice? Why wouldn't you want to give the local school districts the choice over how to use that money? I think the answer is: Well, because that is not our idea. We in Washington have a better idea. We know what's best. The presumption is, we know what is best for every school district in the country. But that isn't true. It is the folks who know the kids' names, who are right there in the local community, who understand what they need most. If they could use that money for purposes other than hiring a new teacher or to better the education of their kids--because maybe they have enough teachers--then why shouldn't we give them that choice? It is a very simple proposition--two competing ideas: Washington knows best or letting the school district decide. There is another potential problem with the Murray amendment. Perhaps those more familiar with the funding could speak to this issue, but I think there is a significant likelihood that with $200 million more in money under the Murray amendment, the forward funding concept being proposed here would result in that money coming from the Social Security trust fund. If there is any chance of that happening, I must say, we should be firmly and unequivocally in opposition. We should not be here today making decisions which--maybe not next year but the year after--could result in taking money from the Social Security trust fund, even to fund something as beneficial as education. There is plenty of room in the non-Social Security budget for all of the things we need to do. Remember, this year we have a surplus. The President just announced the size of that surplus--well over $100 billion. Much of that is in the non-Social Security side of the budget. A surplus, by definition, means that after we have paid for everything else we need, we have money left over. So we are not talking about not being able to fund what we need to fund.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete a statement, which is about 5 minutes. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Certainly.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bipartisan bankruptcy-reform bill on May 5 by a vote of 313 to 108. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported a similar initiative in April by a vote of 14 to 4, and my hope is that the full Senate will follow suit before the year is out. Mr. President, most Americans carefully manage their finances, pay their bills, and never face the prospect of bankruptcy, yet we rarely hear about them when bankruptcy reform is debated. These are the people who ultimately bear the cost when others seek bankruptcy protection. They pay in terms of higher interest rates and higher prices on goods and services. This bankruptcy tax costs the average household more than $400 a year. There will always be a limited number of people who unexpectedly experience some catastrophe in their lives--maybe a death or divorce, or a serious illness--that throws their finances into chaos. That is why we accept as a given that society will bear some of the cost of bankruptcy, and why we maintain access to bankruptcy relief for those who truly need it. No one suggests closing off bankruptcy as an option for those who are in truly dire straits. A line does need to be drawn, however, when people, particularly those with above-average incomes who have the means and ability to repay their debts, nevertheless seek to have those debts erased in bankruptcy. This is happening more and more often, and unless we get the problem in check, it is going to wreak havoc. Mr. President, there is nothing fair about forcing a single mother, who is already struggling to pay her own family's bills, to pay more merely because someone who can repay his or her debts prefers to escape them in bankruptcy. There is nothing fair about forcing young families or seniors on fixed incomes to pay more so that someone can walk away from his or her debts as a matter of convenience or financial planning. Few bills so clearly protect the interests of consumers, yet the bankruptcy-reform bill does have its critics. Much of the criticism, I think, misses the mark. Two professors of law, Todd Zywicki and James White, wrote to the Judiciary Committee recently about some of the claims that have been made, and what they had to say is worthy of the consideration of every member of this body. I ask Senators to join me in supporting the bipartisan bankruptcy- reform bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the professors' letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Sandra Day O'Connor was born on March 26, 1930, the first of three children of Harry A. Day and Ada Mae Wilkey Day. After attending secondary school in El Paso, she pursued her undergraduate education at Stanford University. Justice O'Connor initially studied economics at Stanford with the ultimate goal of running her family ranch. She was uninterested in the law until she took a business law class her junior year. She fell in love with law. Justice O'Connor enrolled in Stanford law school, and was able to graduate with her undergraduate and law degrees in 6 years. She excelled in law school, becoming a member of the Stanford Law Review's board of editors and graduating third in her class. While in Stanford Law School, she met her future husband, John Jay O'Connor III, as well as future Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Upon graduating, the only job offer she received was for a position as a legal secretary. Unable as a female attorney to find employment with a private firm, she became a deputy county attorney in California. Soon after, her husband joined the Judge Advocate General's office for the U.S. Army and was stationed in Germany. Justice O'Connor joined her husband oversees as a civilian lawyer for the Quartermaster Corps. The young couple returned to the United States in 1957, settling in Phoenix, Arizona. Within 6 years, the O'Connor's had three sons: Scott, Brian, and Jay. In 1958, after the birth of her first child, Justice O'Connor and a friend started their own law firm. Two years later, after the birth of her second child, Justice O'Connor became a full- time mother and immersed herself in volunteer work. She was a volunteer juvenile-court referee, chair of a juvenile home visiting board, and she organized a lawyer-referral service. In 1965, she returned to public service as an assistant state attorney general for Arizona. In 1969, Justice O'Connor was appointed to a vacated seat in the Arizona Senate by the County Board of Supervisors. She won reelection to the Senate for two successive terms. Not surprisingly, she excelled as a state senator, and in 1972 she was elected majority leader. As would become standard for her, she was the first woman to hold such a senior legislative office anywhere in the United States. In 1974, Justice O'Connor was elected to the Maricopa County Superior Court, where she served for 5 years. She was later encouraged to run for Governor, but declined. In 1979, Governor Bruce Babbitt's first appointee to the Arizona Court of Appeals was Sandra Day O'Connor. On August 19, 1981, President Reagan nominated Justice O'Connor to become the 102nd Supreme Court Justice, replacing the retiring Justice Potter Stewart. She was the first woman nominee to the Supreme Court. She was confirmed by a vote of 99 to 0, and took the oath of office on September 25, 1981. Justice O'Connor's tenure on the Court has been marked by her defense of states' rights, equal protection, and religious liberty. Justice O'Connor is known as a restrained jurist, a strong supporter of federalism, and a cautious interpreter of the Constitution. She has been described not only as committed and intense, but also as warm and down-to-earth, and a loving mother and grandmother. Last Wednesday, September 22nd was the 18th anniversary of their confirmation as Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and last Saturday was the 18th anniversary of the day she took the oath of office. To honor her service to this nation and to the law, Senator McCain and I have introduced a bill to name the new Phoenix courthouse in her honor as the ``Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse.'' Obviously Justice O'Connor, being extremely modest, has repeatedly declined my overtures to have the courthouse named after her. However, in the face of my continued campaign and my obvious determination to see that she is given the recognition she has earned--and because the timeline of the courthouse's construction and dedication next spring require immediate action on the Senate's schedule--the Justice finally relented and allowed me to go forward with this legislation. Justice O'Connor's place in history is set: she has been a trailblazer for women in the law--rising to the top in every area in which she has worked. Justice O'Connor is one of the most important jurists in our nation's history, It is fitting that a beautiful, yet very functional new Federal courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona, be dedicated in her honor.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Defense authorization conference report. The debate on this bill comes at time when our nation faces a host of new national security challenges, like the growing missile threat, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, potential information warfare attacks on our critical infrastructure, and aggressive espionage directed at our nuclear laboratories. It also comes at a time when our armed forces are facing critical shortfalls in readiness and recruitment and retention. Our men and women in uniform are stretched to the limit, with deployments around the globe to places such as Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, the Persian Gulf, the Sinai Peninsula, South Korea, and the list goes on and on. Senator Warner and his colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have produced a good bill that begins to address some of these problems. First, the bill authorizes a total of $288.8 billion for DoD and the national security programs at the Energy Department--$8.3 billion more than the President's request. It also increases funding for readiness by $1.5 billion and procurement by $3 billion above the President's request. The bill provides a 4.8% pay raise for our men and women in uniform, reforms the military pay tables, and improves the retirement system, which should help with recruitment and retention problems. It authorizes $403 million over the President's request for missile defense, $150 million more than requested for the protection of DoD's computer networks, and authorizes and fully funds 17 new National Guard rapid response teams to respond to terrorist attacks in the U.S.--12 more than requested by the Administration. And finally, this bill contains a series of provisions to reorganize the Department of Energy in order to improve security and counterintelligence. Over the past few months, we have all heard the sobering news about how our nation's security has been damaged by China's theft of America's most sensitive secrets. Earlier this year, the declassified version of the bipartisan Cox Committee report was released, which 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. An interagency group established by CIA Director Tenet, with representatives from each of the U.S. intelligence agencies, also prepared a damage assessment, which unanimously concluded that ``China obtained through espionage classified U.S. nuclear weapons information,'' including ``design information on several modern U.S. nuclear reentry vehicles,'' and ``information on a variety of U.S. weapon design concepts and weaponization features.'' After the effects of China's espionage came to light, the President asked his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, led by former Senator Rudman, to look into the matter. The board released its findings in June, calling for sweeping organizational reform of DOE to address what it described as ``the worst security record on secrecy'' that the panel members ``have ever encountered.'' The bipartisan 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. The Rudman report pulled no punches, noting that, ``The Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself. . . The long traditional and effective method of entrenched DOE and lab bureaucrats is to defeat security reform initiatives by waiting them out.'' Although Energy Secretary Richardson announced several new initiatives to change management and procedures at DOE, the Presidential panel's report states, ``we seriously doubt that his initiatives will achieve lasting success,'' and notes, ``moreover, the Richardson initiatives simply do not go far enough.'' It is because of these problems that the Presidential panel recommended that Congress act to reorganize the Department by statute, so that the bureaucracy could not simply wait out another Secretary of Energy. In response to the reports of security problems at our nuclear facilities, Senator Domenici, Senator Murkowski, and I drafted legislation to implement the recommendations of the Rudman panel. Our legislation gathered all the parts of our nuclear weapons programs under one semi-autonomous agency within DOE, with clear lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability, with one person in charge, called the Administrator, who will continue to report to the Energy Secretary. Our legislation, which was offered as an amendment to the intelligence authorization bill, was passed by the Senate on July 21st by an overwhelming vote of 96 to 1. I want to thank Senator Warner for working with us to include this legislation in the Defense Authorization Conference Report. A semiautonomous agency, created by statute, is the only way we are going to solve the problems with DOE's management of the nuclear weapons complex, that are long-standing, systemic, and go to the very heart of the way the Department is managed, structured, and organized. To begin with, this semi-autonomous agency will establish a clear mission for the organization, by separating the management of the nuclear weapons programs at DOE from the rest of the Department that is responsible for a broad range of unrelated tasks like setting energy efficiency standards for refrigerators. The provisions of the Conference Report also establish a clear chain of command for our nuclear weapons programs and facilities to establish accountability-- something that the Rudman report said was ``spread so thinly and erratically [at DOE] that it is now almost impossible to find.'' Since the conference report was filed in August, some opponents of DOE reorganization have charged that this legislation would exempt the new semi-autonomous agency from environmental and safety laws and regulations--a charge which is simply false. Section 3261 of the bill, which I would note is identical to the language in the amendment passed by the Senate 96 to 1, states, ``The Administrator shall ensure that the Administration complies with all applicable environmental, safety, and health statutes and substantive requirements.'' Furthermore, section 3261 states, ``Nothing in this title shall diminish the authority of the Secretary of Energy to ascertain and ensure that such compliance occurs.'' I would also note, that section 3211, which establishes the mission of the new agency clearly states, ``In carrying out the mission of the Administration, the Administrator shall ensure that all operations and activities of the Administration are consistent with the principles of protecting the environment and safeguarding the safety and health of the public and of the workforce of the Administration.'' Some critics have also falsely charged that this legislation would narrow or supercede existing waiver of sovereign immunity agreements with the states and undercut the Federal Facility and Compliance Act, which clarified that states have regulatory authority over hazardous waste management and clean-up. Mr. President, I would point out that Federal Facility Compliance Agreements are based on waivers of sovereign immunity established under applicable federal environmental statutes, which are not affected by this bill. As section 3296 makes clear, ``unless otherwise provided in this title, all provisions of law and regulations in effect immediately before the effective date of this title. . . shall continue to apply to the corresponding functions of the Administration.'' It is well past time to correct the chronic security problems at our nuclear facilities. Earlier this year, four committee's in the Senate held six hearings specifically on the legislation Senator Domenici, Senator Murkowski, and I proposed. The time has come to act. Great harm to our nation's security has already been done, and if we want to prevent further damage, we must act to reform the way we manage our nuclear weapons programs and facilities to create accountability and responsibility. Our most fundamental duty as Senators is to protect the safety and security of the American people. They deserve no less than our best in this regard. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this important bill.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have the obligation of chairing a nominations hearing in the Judiciary Committee at 2 o'clock, which I am sure my colleagues on the other side would like to move forward on, since all of the nominees appear quite qualified and presumably could move forward. I ask unanimous consent that I may take 30 seconds to express my support for what the chairman is doing and then put a statement in the Record. That would be satisfactory from my standpoint.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have had the pleasure of attending the subcommittee meeting this morning, and I heard witnesses who are victims of the terrorists who were given clemency. It was a heartbreaking experience, frankly, because at the conclusion of it one understands that we haven't closed a chapter by doing this. In fact, the President has probably opened a new chapter. I believe there will be additional terrorism as a result of the clemency that he ordered. I hope that will be addressed by this Senate, working together with the administration, so we can continue a policy which has been effective heretofore, and that is making certain that terrorists are hunted down, prosecuted, and incarcerated so they can't commit terrorist acts again. To the extent the President's actions in this case were different from that past policy, they should be condemned, and we as a Senate should make sure it doesn't continue in the future. So I commend the chairman of the subcommittee for holding his hearing. I indicate again that the Judiciary Committee will have its hearing tomorrow and will have more to say about this.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, one of the appropriations bills we have yet to act upon is the Interior appropriations bill, as Senator Thomas pointed out. He comes from the State of Wyoming. I come from the State of Arizona. Practically every State west of the Mississippi is significantly impacted by this bill because, as I am sure you are well aware, Mr. President, coming from the State of Montana, more than a third of this Nation's lands are owned by the Federal Government. Most of those are in the western United States. Many of those lands are under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. This is an extraordinarily important bill for the people of our States. I just want to discuss one aspect of it that is very important for my State of Arizona and other States in the western United States. We have a very difficult condition in our national forests now. They have been probably--I think it is not too strong a term--``mismanaged'' over the years. It has been a combination of things. It has been the combination of the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the grazing on public lands, the way that fire suppression has taken off, and some other things which have resulted in the condition where, instead of healthy forests of large trees that have great environmental value and value to the other flora and fauna in the forest and which present a relatively safe situation in terms of forest fires, we now have a situation in the West where our forests are literally becoming overgrown. They are becoming so thick and dense with small-growth trees that: (A) They are very fire prone. (B) They are not resistant at all to disease and to insects. (C) They are not environmentally pleasing at all. (D) None of the trees grow up to be very large because they are all competing for the moisture and the nutrients in the soil. The net result is a situation that is very different from that which pertained at the turn of the century when we had very healthy forests of very large trees that were spaced quite a distance apart, with meadows in between, with a lot of good grass that livestock and wild animals could graze on, and which were not prone to forest fire because the fire would work along the ground when it occurred. It would reduce the fuel load on the ground, but it would never get to be the kind of crown fire we have just seen on television that has been experienced in several States in the West, not the least of which is in California. You get the crown fires when you have a lot of brush on the ground. You have these small, dense trees and many come under the boughs of the great big trees. The fire starts on the ground and goes right up to the crown of the other trees. We have all seen from those television pictures the explosive power of the fires. It is a horrendous situation. It threatens life and limb as well as the destruction of the forest and all that is within it. We have to find a way to better manage our forests. We have been for some time urging the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior to work on a management program which essentially involves the thinning of these small-diameter trees, leaving the large-diameter trees--leaving the old growth but thinning out the small-diameter trees, and then doing controlled burns to get rid of the fuel load, and after that letting nature take its course. We have found from experimentation--primarily through Northern Arizona University, Dr. Walley Covington, and others who have done the research and demonstration projects we have funded--that the trees become more healthy. The pitch content of the trees increases significantly. So they are less susceptible to bark beetles and other kinds of insect damage. The grasses grow up underneath the trees as they didn't do before. The protein content of the grasses is significantly higher. So it is much better grazing for the forest animals. In every respect, from an environmental point of view, it is a better situation than that which pertains today. This takes money because you have to pay to go in and do the thinning. Each one of these projects requires a substantial amount of money. So far, the research has been done on small plots of land. But according to the General Accounting Office, we have about 25 to 30 years maximum to treat all of our forests or we are going to be into a contagion situation with very little hope of saving these forests. In fact, we have about 39 million acres of national forest lands in the interior West that are at high risk of catastrophic fire, and only this brief period of maybe 25 years to effectively manage these forests. There are two major impediments to solving the problem. One is agency inertia. It has taken a long time to get the agencies up and running. Secretary Babbitt has been supportive of this concept. There are extremists in the environmental community who want to prevent any management of the forest. Many fine environmental groups are supportive of participation in this program, but there are extremists who file lawsuits to try to prevent any management. I have asked Forest Service Chief Dombeck to support a dramatic increase in forest restoration. In fact, the Forest Service plans to implement three to four large-scale projects of 100,000 to 300,000-acre size during fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year 2000 budget for the Forest Service called for reducing fuels on only 1.3 million acres, down from 1.5 million planned for 1999. The GAO estimates a very substantial increase in funding will be necessary, probably up to $725 million annually, in order to adequately address this problem. I strongly support increased restoration funding for this fuels reduction program, including the Forest Service new line-item request for the forest ecosystem restoration improvement fund. This will be used to support forest restoration projects where current funding is not available or feasible, particularly in a situation where the materials are available to be cut have no commercial value. I plan to continue my efforts to support this. I know the Senator from Wyoming is strongly supportive of managing our national forests-- both the forests under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior--in a very sensible fashion. We are just now starting this. It has taken a few years to get consent on the right way to do this. We have a lot more funding to provide. We need much more agency support for this forest restoration if we are going to save the national forests of this great country. I think this is very important not only for the people in the West but throughout the country. I think it deserves our attention and our priority. I appreciate the opportunity for discussion this morning, and I thank the Senator from Wyoming for reserving time to talk about these important issues.