Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, and Finance Committee chairman, Senator Roth, for recognizing the problem of many seniors who are not afforded choice in determining where they get their health care and on agreeing to address this problem in the 106th Congress. I also thank Senators Hollings, Roth, Gorton, Craig, Nickles, Allard, Mack, Grassley, Bennett, Inhofe and Shelby for participating with statements for the Record. We do intend to address this problem in the next session of the Congress because we could not get it done this session. I appreciate my colleagues' commitment to doing that and, again, thank the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator from Utah. Mr. President, I rise with several of my fellow Senators in support of S. 1194, the Medicare Beneficiary Freedom to Contract Act. S. 1194 currently has 48 Senate and 192 House cosponsors. We believe that Medicare beneficiaries should have the same right to obtain health care from the physician or provider of their choice as do Members of Congress and virtually all other Americans. It is dangerous to have the government control health care decisions in a free society. What is the problem addressed by this legislation? The problem is simply one of health care choice for seniors--a problem which has been brought to our attention by countless constituents all over America. As I have mentioned on the Senate floor several times, this problem was first brought to my attention in a letter I received from Mr. and Mrs. C.B. Howard of Prescott. Mary Ann Howard is a diabetic. The medicine she was taking was not working, and she wanted to change doctors to one who specialized in treating diabetics. Her doctor told her that this was not possible. Amazed, Mary Ann asked why, and her original doctor replied that, due to the regulatory and administrative burdens of the Medicare system, the specialist cannot afford to take any more Medicare patients. When Mary Ann--who had recently turned 65 and enrolled in Medicare-- asked the specialist if she could pay for the treatment out of pocket, the specialist said no. ``If I accept you as a patient, I would be accused of Medicare fraud.'' Yes, it's true: Because of a flawed interpretation of the Medicare law, the government has barred Medicare beneficiaries from using their own money to receive treatment from the doctor of their choice. It's Medicare or no care! To end this unfairness, the Senate passed the Kyl amendment to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that would allow health care choice for seniors. But the Administration threatened to veto the entire budget over this provision, and forced the Senate-House conference committee to include a poison pill: In order to enter into a private contract, a physician or other provider would have to sign out of Medicare for two years. The two-year exclusion presents your doctor with a difficult choice: He can either treat you, his patient of 30 years, on a private contract basis, and drop his other Medicare patients for two years; or refuse to treat you in favor of his current Medicare patients. Over 96 percent of doctors accept some Medicare patients and would not likely be willing to impose such a hardship on their current patients. So your options will likely be reduced. To remove this ``two year'' limitation on patient-choice, House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer and I introduced the Medicare Beneficiaries Freedom to Contract Act. The bill removes the two-year exclusion and ensure that any Medicare beneficiary can enter into an agreement with the provider of his or her choice for any health care service. In his 1998 State of the Union address, President Clinton said that all Americans ``should have the right to choose the doctor they want for the care they need.'' We could not agree more. But as of January 1 of this year, seniors no longer have this right because, as I mentioned, the President insisted last year's Balanced Budget Act be changed to effectively preclude seniors from going outside of Medicare--even if they are willing to pay for the care themselves. S. 1194 could also be referred to as the Senior Citizens ``Medicare Point of Service Option.'' Just as with a Point of Service Option in a private plan, this ``Medicare Point of Service Option'' would allow seniors to go outside of the Medicare network to obtain care from the doctors of their choice. The only real difference is that the senior-patient would pay 100 percent of the cost of exercising this right, whereas the private plan would subsidize this choice to some degree. Sandra Butler, president of United Seniors Association, represents the organization's 640,000 members who strongly support this bill. United Seniors Association members believe that the government's view of private contracting ``violates a basic--no, the basic--principle of American life: freedom.'' In addition, a broad array of organizations have expressed support for the case to overturn current law. This group includes the Christian Coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, National Right to Life Committee, the American Medical Association, the American Conservative Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National Center for Policy Analysis. Opponents of the bill make three basic arguments: the bill will increase fraud, will put seniors at the mercy of doctors and other providers, and will hurt Medicare. 1. With respect to fraud, the bill contains extensive anti-fraud measures, including the requirement of a written contract with clear terms, such as the fact that the service could be paid for by Medicare. 2. Others believe that unethical doctors would take advantage of vulnerable seniors. Common experience with medical professionals who save lives without reimbursement in emergency situations, and seniors who read and question virtually every line in their Medicare bill, clearly refute this claim. Further, a senior can for any reason terminate the contract prospectively and return to Medicare for the covered benefit. 3. Some believe private contracting will destroy Medicare. However, private contracting will result in fewer claims being paid out of the near-bankrupt Medicare trust fund. We believe that the right of seniors to choose the health care provider and benefits that suit their individual needs is essential to our Nation's concept of liberty. In fact, there is no more fundamental principle at stake in any legislative issue before the Congress. We must not be the Congress that denied seniors the right to spend money they may have saved for years on a medical procedure needed for themselves or a loved one. Imagine a law that made it illegal for seniors to supplement their Social Security check with private funds! In sum, Mr. President, we believe that the Congress should enact legislation that ensures that seniors have the right to see the physician or health-care provider they want, and not be limited in such right by the imposition of unreasonable conditions on providers who are willing to treat seniors on a private basis. Even Great Britain's system of socialized medicine gives its beneficiaries this freedom. Senators and their staffs have this freedom. Surely, America should do no less for its seniors. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to express my appreciation for my colleagues' willingness to work with me to ensure seniors the critical right of health-care choice. I am joined by many of my colleagues in the Senate to ask the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Roth, to work with us and the numerous outside organizations to address this issue of Medicare freedom of health-care choice as soon as is reasonable in the 106th Congress. As we know, President Clinton and some of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle want the government to continue to control all medical decisions of seniors. We must not rest until seniors are granted this basic civil right to choose the doctors and benefits that best address their particular health needs.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1892, the judicial anti-nepotism bill. Section 458 of 28 U.S.C. reads: ``No person shall be appointed to or employed in any office or duty in any court who is related by affinity or consanguinity within the degree of first cousin to any justice or judge of such court.'' There is some debate about the interpretation of section 458. Some hold the view that the statute means what it says--no person related to a judge of a court may be appointed to that same court. But some hold a contrary view. Indeed, in a 1995 memo by Richard Shiffrin of the Office of Legal Counsel, although the OLC conceded that the statutory language appears to restrict presidential appointments to offices or duties In federal courts, the OLC argued that the statute only applies to judges hiring or appointing persons to the courts. Many scholars disagree with this view and with the other memoranda issued by the Administration. Finally, there is also disagreement as to whether section 458 applies to appointments where a judge has taken senior status is a ``judge of such court.'' For future judicial nominees, the Administration and the Senate must understand the criteria required for Article III judicial appointments. S. 1892 maintains the current prohibition on relatives of judges being appointed to or employed in any job of the court, such as for example, positions as clerks and bailiffs. S. 1892 amends 28 U.S.C. 458 to clarify that no person may be appointed to be a judge of a court if that person is related within the degree of first cousin to any judge, including a judge retired in senior status of that ``same court.'' Under the bill, ``same court'' means, in the case of a district court, any court of the same single judicial district; and, in the case of a court of appeals, the court of appeals of a single judicial district. For example, a person may not be a member of the Federal District Court in Arizona if a related person is already a member of the Federal District Court in Arizona, but related persons may serve simultaneously on federal district courts in Arizona and New Mexico. Additionally, related persons may serve simultaneously on the Northern and Eastern Federal District Courts in California. A person may not be a member of the 2nd Circuit if a related person is a member of that circuit, but related persons may serve on the 2nd and the 7th Circuits simultaneously. It is important to Note that this act does not apply to the Supreme Court. The act takes effect on the date of enactment and applies only to an individual whose nomination is submitted to the Senate on or after such date. Thus, the bill would not affect the nomination of William Fletcher. A thorough study of the constitutional provisions at issue, of the relevant case law, and of prominent legal treatises makes it clear that the bill is constitutional. Indeed, a March 31, 1998 report on the bill by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service has concluded that ``[a]fter consideration of the text of the Constitution, the precedents, and the historical practice, we believe it to be established that Congress has the authority to fix this and other qualifications for the office of judges of Article III courts. . . .'' The Constitution is, in fact, silent on what lower courts there were to be, their composition and jurisdiction, and their powers. Inasmuch as the Constitution ``delineated only the great outlines of the judicial power . . ., leaving the details to Congress, . . . ``[t]he distribution and appropriate exercise of the judicial power must . . . be made by laws passed by Congress. . . .'' Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. (37 U.S.) 657, 721 (1838). The public policy behind Section 458 and S. 1892 is clear: For the public to maintain a sufficient level of confidence in the integrity and impartiality of its public institutions, those institutions must strive not only to avoid circumstances in which actual impropriety could arise among public servants, but to avoid all circumstances that create even the remote appearance of impropriety. Having close family members serve on the same court would create an appearance of impropriety. Of all the relationships that one judge could have to another--for example, former law partners or members of the same bench for 20 years--a familial relationship is one that is certain to automatically cause a litigant to question the impartiality of a judge. Litigants must have complete confidence that federal judges will be objective and impartial while on the bench. The institutional integrity of Federal courts requires scrupulous protection of public confidence in the judicial process. Preventing close family members from serving on the same court is a small price to pay to avoid a potential diminution of credibility and impartiality of the Judiciary, one of the Nation's most hallowed institutions.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman in a colloquy regarding a provision of the Commercial Space Act of 1998. It is my understanding that Section 202(b)(6) of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, which requires any company receiving a license to operate a remote sensing system to ``notify the Secretary [of Commerce] of any agreement the licensee intends to enter with a foreign nation,'' is amended by the Commercial Space Act of 1998 by inserting the words ``significant or substantial'' after ``Secretary of any.'' This is intended to limit the agreements which are reported to the Department of Commerce. As you know, the Congress has acted in the past to limit imagery of Israel. I would like to clarify that any agreement or contract permitting any imaging of Israel using commercially available, satellite-based remote sensing technology would fall under the definition of ``significant or substantial.'' Is this the Chairman's understanding?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, might I inquire, is it appropriate to begin debate on the subject of the unanimous consent request, S. 1892? And is it correct that the time would be under my control and then Senator Leahy would have time on the other side?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I am happy to yield the remainder of my time and am prepared to vote.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Leahy for his cooperation in allowing us to get this bill up at this time and deal with it in an expedited fashion. I will describe briefly the reason for the legislation, what it does. I will ask unanimous consent to submit further remarks for the Record. Under existing law, section 458 of title 28 of the U.S. Code reads: ``No person shall be appointed to, or employed in, any office or duty in any court who is related by affinity or consanguinity within the degree of first cousin to any justice or judge of such court.'' I will read the words that pertain to judges: ``no person shall be appointed . . . to any court who is related . . . to any justice or judge of such court.'' That language seems pretty straightforward on its face--that you can't have relations on the same court, nominated by the President or appointed by the Senate. Notwithstanding that relatively clear language, there has arisen a controversy over whether it means what I suggest it says. The administration has actually interpreted it in a way that could mean that it applies only to employees of the court, not to judges of the court themselves. This bill clarifies that it applies to both, which I think was both the original intent and the best public policy. I note that the issue has arisen because of the nomination of Professor Fletcher to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit, since his mother sits on the circuit currently. Frankly, most people were not aware of the statute, Madam President. But, in my view, we should not do something that is not permitted under the law. Therefore, while I acknowledge that the administration has raised a question about the interpretation of the statute, I think the statute is pretty clear. This bill makes it crystal clear that it applies to both employees of the court and judges of the court. In effect, what the legislation would do is to say that on the same court, like the same circuit or the same district court, you would not be able to have a father and son, two brothers, two sisters, that sort of thing. But you could have people related on different circuits or different Federal district courts. For example, you could have a brother in the Fifth Circuit and a brother in the Second Circuit. You could have two sisters serving in different circuits or different districts in the State of Maine, or of the State of Pennsylvania, or of the State of Vermont. But you would not be able to have two close relatives in the very same court. The public policy reasons for that are fairly obvious. When a litigant is before the court, the litigant wants to know that he or she is being treated fairly. When a relative who is that close to a judge that may have decided a case on a panel of judges is then being called upon to review the decision of that close relative, the litigant clearly is going to have a question as to whether his or her case can be treated fairly. Here is an example: A circuit court judge sits on a panel of three judges who decide against a plaintiff. That case is then given to the en banc panel of the circuit court in which the father, or the brother, or the sister of that judge is also a member of the panel; the litigant might well be a little skeptical that the brother, sister, father, or whoever it is, is going to be treating him fairly, given the fact that the question is whether or not he will overturn the decision of his brother, or his son, or whoever the relative is. So it is historic that we have tried to avoid that kind of conflict of interest. In most cases, it can be avoided. The kinds of situations in which this will arise are very rare. But since it has arisen in the context of this particular nominee, and since we think we can make the statute crystal clear to apply to both judges and employees, it seemed like a good thing to do. I have two final points. One, this does not apply to the U.S. Supreme Court. Constitutionally, we have the ability to set the criteria or qualifications for circuit and district courts, but we don't have that ability for the Supreme Court. That is fixed in the Constitution. We could not apply it there. Secondly, it only applies to nominations made after the effective date of the statute. For those interested in the nomination of Professor Fletcher, this statute or change would not adversely affect his nomination or confirmation by the Senate. With that explanation, I yield to Senator Leahy for such comment as he may want to make. I know he is in opposition to the bill.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I concur with everything the senior Senator from my state has just said. I would like to add that I find it inconceivable that the Forest Service could determine that it cannot identify approximately 20 acres of land on the entire Santa Catalina ranger district of the Coranado National Forest that is both suitable for a shooting range and readily accessible to the members of the Club. I expect that a suitable location will be found and that the Forest Service will work with the club in good faith to agree on a plan to open a facility. Mr. President, I would also like to thank Representative Kolbe for his leadership and hard work on this issue.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the commitment that Senator Warner and other members of the Armed Services Committee and Senator Sessions have expressed regarding this program. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that a new tritium source is implemented on schedule meeting DOD requirements. Again, I thank Senator Warner for his cooperation in helping to bring this matter to the floor at this time.

Mr. KYL. I thank Senator Warner. I thank Senator Thurmond, the chairman of the committee, as well. As the Senator knows, I have raised an issue with the tritium provisions included in the fiscal year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act conference report. And I would be happy to engage in this colloquy with respect to that issue. As the Senator knows, the conference report provision regarding tritium states, among other things, that ``the Secretary of Energy may not obligate or expend any funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1999 to implement a final decision on the technology to be utilized for tritium production, made pursuant to section 3135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998.'' I am concerned that the administration will use this provision to continue to delay progress on this important program and build in a one-year delay in meeting DOD requirements. Can the Senator please explain the intent of this provision?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I first commend the Senator from Virginia for his eloquent remarks, highlighting the result of the very important hearing yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee and calling all of us to the challenge of providing the adequate resources necessary for our armed services to carry out their mission in the defense of the security interests of the United States of America. It was an eloquent statement, and I think it is something that all of us need to take to heart. Again, I want to thank Senator Warner for his efforts, largely I suspect unappreciated, because they are behind the scenes to deal with all of the myriad of problems in putting together a defense conference report and assisting the chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, and working with our House colleagues as well. The colloquy that we had a moment ago was, in significant respect, to the result of his efforts. And I appreciate that. juniper butte range withdrawal act colloquy Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the managers as to the intent of the conferees with respect to the issuance of grazing permits for lands withdrawn and reserved under Title XXIX of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 in the event that the Air Force relinquishes such withdrawn lands. As the managers know, the Juniper Butte Range withdrawal under title XXIX, would withdraw certain public lands for use by the Air Force as a training area. The lands are withdrawn from the existing Juniper draw allotment managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in an area south of the Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. The withdrawal is from the center of the allotment, leaving approximately 6,000 perimeter acres of the allotment still under a grazing permit and the jurisdiction of the BLM. It is my understanding that, at such time as the Air Force relinquishes its use of the withdrawn lands and returns jurisdiction to the Department of the Interior, the holder of the grazing permit for the Juniper draw allotment at that time should have an opportunity to obtain a grazing permit for the relinquished lands in the center of the allotment. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, would my colleague yield the floor? Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would be pleased to yield to my friend. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership that my friend and colleague, Senator Kempthorne, has shown on this legislation. He has raised a very important point here today. Anyone familiar with ranching in the West knows that an economically viable ranch requires access to large blocks of land to raise livestock in an environmentally sound way. With the intermingling of federal, state, and private lands in our state of Idaho, access to BLM land is essential for ranchers. Any time 12,000 acres are withdrawn from an existing BLM allotment, it will dramatically impact the rancher who holds the permit for that allotment. Blocked up land is more easily and economically managed. Scattered parcels have the opposite effect. There may come a time, as contemplated by the legislation, when the Air Force would relinquish its control over these lands. While Air Force relinquishment of the withdrawn lands may not occur for what would be considered a long time by most people, members of the ranching community measure such events by the passing of generations, and that end result can reasonably be anticipated. And so, I seek clarification for the inquiry initiated by my colleague from Idaho. The answer to his question will be vitally important to whoever holds the permit surrounding the withdrawn land at such time as the Air Force would, in fact, relinquish it to the Department of the Interior. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would tell my able friends and colleagues from Idaho that I concur with their assessment of the intent of the conferees following relinquishment of the Juniper Butte Range to the Department of the Interior. The conferees are mindful of the impact this withdrawal will have upon the surrounding BLM lands and the use of those lands by current and future grazing permittees. Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Chair and I thank the managers of this important legislation for their response to our inquiry. Mr. President, I wish to determine whether the managers of the legislation agree with my understanding as to one additional provision. Section 2917(b)(3) of the Juniper Butte Range Withdrawal Act provides for delegated authority and approvals granted by the Bureau of Land Management pursuant to the decisions of the Secretary of the Interior, or the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management. Section 2907(b)(1) specifically refers to the authority of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management to grant rights-of-way and approvals must be granted by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management. This is as it should be. Mr. President, I ask the managers of this legislation if my characterization is accurate? Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho has correctly interpreted the intent of the conferees as to the authority of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management. It is the intention of the conferees that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management shall grant rights-of-way and approvals and take such actions as are necessary under Section 2907(b)(1). Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have been listening to the discussion of the Juniper Butte Range Withdrawal as it pertains to grazing permits and the delegation of authority. As to the relinquishment of withdrawn lands to the Department of the Interior for grazing use, I fully agree with the statements of the Senators from Idaho. I also agree with the need to clarify the congressional intent regarding the delegation of authority, as stated by my friend, the junior Senator from Idaho. Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, again, I wish to thank the managers of the bill and the senior Senator from Virginia for their cooperation in clarifying the congressional intent.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise at this time to express my opposition to specific language in the defense authorization conference report prohibiting the use of fiscal year 1999 funds to implement the decision of the Department of Energy regarding a production source for tritium. Specifically, the language states as follows: The Secretary of Energy may not obligate or expend any funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1999 to implement a final decision on the technology to be utilized for tritium production, made pursuant to section 3135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 . . . until October 1, 1999. Mr. President, anything that might delay implementation of a tritium production program ought to be of great concern to all of us. Tritium is the key to maintaining the credibility of our nuclear deterrent. Without a reliable source of tritium, our nuclear forces could become impotent, thereby undermining the very essence of a deterrent that has kept the peace for more than 40 years. Mr. President, for the benefit of those who are not as familiar with the program, tritium is a gas that is injected into a nuclear warhead to boost its yield. Once it is produced, however, tritium begins to decay at a rate of approximately 5 percent per year, therefore it must be replenished constantly. The United States has not produced tritium since 1988 when the Bush administration made the decision to shut down the K-reactor at the Savannah River site. Since that time, replenishment of tritium in the stockpile has continued only by recycling it from dismantled nuclear warheads. When the Bush administration made the decision to shut down the K- reactor, it immediately embarked on a new production reactor program with the purpose of identifying and selecting a new production source for tritium. Mr. President, I should say at this point that I have no parochial interest in what type of technology the Department of Energy selects to produce tritium. I favor only the option that will provide an assured source of tritium in the timeframe necessary to meet the requirements set by the Department of Defense. My interest in tritium dates back to the 1988 decision by the Bush administration when I was the ranking minority member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Panel of the House Armed Services Committee. It is because I have no parochial interest and that I have had such a longstanding interest in ensuring a reliable source for tritium in the United States that I rise in opposition to the actions taken by the conferees in the fiscal year 1999 defense conference report. For 10 years, the Congress has been on record as encouraging DOE to make a decision on a tritium production source. A report issued by former Senator Sam Nunn in 1990 said: The committee strongly supports the acquisition of a new production reactor, believing an assured supply of tritium is the highest nuclear material priority in support of the nation's nuclear deterrent forces. A 1992 defense authorization report from the Senate stated: As long as the United States maintains a nuclear deterrent it will need a reliable supply of tritium to retain the viability of the stockpile. A 1995 House report stated: The Committee is deeply concerned about the lack of progress by the department in establishing a long term source of tritium, which is necessary to maintain the nation's nuclear deterrent. And section 3135 of the fiscal year 1998 defense authorization bill required the Secretary of Energy to select a production source for tritium not later than December of this year. For 10 years, Congress has been on record as pushing the Department of Energy to select among all of the technologies once thought to be optimum to produce tritium. First, there was the heavy water option, then the modular, high temperature gas cooled reactor, then a triple play reactor. Even the heavy metal reactor came under consideration. The Fast Flux reactor was next, and then the commercial lightwater reactor and finally the accelerator. Now DOE is selecting between the TVA reactor option--a civilian lightwater reactor that may include irradiation services only, and building a particle accelerator at the Savannah River site. For ten years, Congress has pushed and pulled DOE along to make a decision on a production source for tritium. Until now. This year, inexplicably, just three months before the Secretary of Energy will make a decision Congress has been waiting for ten years to hear, the conferees decided to stop the DOE from expending or obligating any funds to implement its December decision. Why? I certainly do not intend to criticize any individual Senator on the Armed Services Committee. Certainly they have all acted with deep concern for the national security of the United States. Senator Bob Smith, the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over DOE nuclear matters and a strong advocate for a new production source, attempted to add $60 million to the budget line for tritium. He was thwarted for a variety of reasons. Senator Thurmond, the chairman of the full committee, has always fought hard to protect the interests of his state; but he has fought equally hard for the interests of all Americans in national defense matters. And Senator Warner, with whom I just had a colloquy, attempted to do his best in this regard, as well. So why did the Congress prohibit the Department of Energy from spending or obligating funds to implement the tritium production decision? The answer is: politics. This conference compromise, I am sad to say, is all about politics. In the House, anti-nuclear foes teamed up with Members promoting one of the options under consideration by DOE, forming a coalition that threatened to jeopardize the entire defense authorization bill. Senate conferees had to find a ``compromise'' just to get the bill out of the conference committee. And the only compromise the House would agree to was calculated to allow advocates for the losing production option to challenge the Secretary's decision for a year, in effect, without prejudice. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not express my strong opposition to this language, because I believe it is tragic that a matter of this magnitude--literally going to the viability of our strategic stockpile--might be influenced by parochial interests. I can assure my colleagues that one of my top priorities from this point forward will be to ensure that the Department of Energy selects a tritium production source, that the Department requests adequate funds to implement its decision in fiscal year 2000 and beyond, and that the Department be allowed, indeed required, to proceed with the production of tritium without hometown politics or anti-nuke groups stopping it or slowing it down. Force level requirements will dictate when the United States needs tritium. If START I levels are maintained, the United States may need tritium as early as 2005. Since it will take several years to complete TVA's Belefonte reactor or to build an accelerator, two of the options, we are already bumping up against the deadline to begin producing tritium for the active stockpile. We already know that tritium will not be available for the inactive stockpile. That means if there's a crisis, the United States will not be able to bring the inactive stockpile into the inventory. Many hope that the United States and Russia will reduce their strategic forces to START II levels; however, there is no evidence that the Duma in Russia is inclined to ratify START II. And, U.S. law prohibits U.S. forces from being reduced beyond START I levels until START II enters into force. The Resolution of Ratification for the Start II Treaty states, ``The START II Treaty shall be binding on the United States until such time as the Duma of the Russian Federation has acted pursuant to its constitutional responsibilities.'' At the START II level, the United States must make a decision on a tritium production source without delay. So, I support the requirement that Secretary Richardson make that decision this December, and I pledge to work as hard as I can to ensure that the decision is carried through to the actual timely production of tritium. I urge my colleagues, including those in the House, to put the nation's interests first, and support a timely implementation of a tritium production facility decision. I appreciate that the majority leader will make a strong statement tomorrow making clear his commitment to provide the leadership to ensure the achievement of that goal. And, the colloquy with Senator Warner and Senator Smith of the Armed Services Committee and Senator Sessions should make it clear that the Senate leaders on this issue are all strongly committed to seeing that the DOE follow up the Secretary's Decision with everything necessary to meet our tritium production requirements. With these assurances strongly asserted here today, I am hopeful the congressional majority will hereafter present a united front, leaving no doubt that the administration must move with dispatch to implement the tritium production decision. As a result, I will support the conference report.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator. Is it the Senator's understanding that, should the Department of Energy submit a deficient plan or fiscal year 2000 budget request, the committee will take action to rectify the problem?

Mr. KYL. Is it further the Senator's understanding that the Department of Energy may reprogram funds to implement its December 1998 tritium production decision?

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator. I hope the Department does submit a reprogramming request to implement the December decision. Is it the committee's intent to indicate in any way to the Department or other parts of the Federal Government that the committee expects DOE to defer selection of a preferred tritium source in December of this year?

Mr. KYL. The Senator from Virginia and Chairman Thurmond have been strong and consistent proponents of the tritium production program. What is the Senator's view about how we should proceed at this point?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, it seems like there is always one more thing we want to say on this important subject. Again, we cannot possibly thank everyone here today, but one of the organizations--now that Senator Feinstein mentions a couple of other people--Mothers Against Drunk Driving have been enormously helpful at the grassroots, working with our colleagues gaining cosponsorships. I would be remiss if I did not mention them. Again, we will have many more opportunities to discuss this. I urge anyone who has questions about it to be in touch with us. But it is certainly an effort that I am going to be pleased to work on in the next session. Mr. Bumpers addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Yes, of course.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me just add some additional thanks to those that Senator Feinstein has indicated here. Before I do, I note the illustrative chart that Senator Feinstein has been referring to refers to the rights of the defendants there. I think it is instructive that for those who say we should not be providing victims' rights by amending the U.S. Constitution, it is very instructive that most of those rights for defendants were added by amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They were not embodied in the original text of the Constitution. So, as times changed and as we determined that rights needed to be added, we did that for the defendants. Now, as Senator Feinstein has pointed out, it is time to add some coequal rights for victims of violent crime. There are some additional people I think we would be remiss in not thanking at this time. Laurence Tribe certainly was mentioned by Senator Feinstein; Professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah was equally helpful to us, in drafting language changes.

Mr. KYL. Might I just interrupt the Senator to also note that, as supporters of the amendment, we have the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and also, as I indicated earlier, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Hyde. So this amendment certainly has the support of the people who have been in the leadership of the committee as well as the current leadership of the committee.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

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