Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, given the fact that the managers of the tobacco legislation are not here even though the Senate was to begin reconsideration of that proposal at 2 o'clock, I would like to continue to speak in morning business for about 5 minutes to put an article in the Record and ask unanimous consent at this time to include that article at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this is an article from the Washington Post by Victor Gilinsky and Paul Leventhal. Victor Gilinsky is an energy consultant, and Paul Leventhal is president of the Nuclear Control Institute. At the time of the 1974 nuclear test by India, they were, respectively, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Senate staff. They write about the history of the nuclear program conducted by India, illustrating the complicity that the United States has had in the Indian program and, more importantly, the misplaced reliance that the United States has put in arms control agreements, which in the end never quite seem to bear the fruit that we had hoped for. In this case, it was part of the Atoms for Peace Program that the United States participated in as a result of a previous treaty, and it was part of the Atoms for Peace Program whereby the United States and Canada and other nuclear powers would provide some material for India for peaceful purposes. They had a reactor built by Canada. It was made essentially operable, according to this article, by the United States providing 21 tons of heavy water. This, of course, was all under a promise that the Indians made to the United States that the reactor would be used only for peaceful purposes. But apparently India used plutonium from this reactor in its 1974 nuclear explosion. What the authors said--I will quote: ``. . .neither capital''--meaning the capital of Canada or the United States--``has uttered a peep about this matter is symptomatic of Western complicity in the South Asian nuclear crisis and of the present paralysis in dealing with it.'' What they are pointing out is that when we negotiate a peace treaty with countries which says, ``You won't develop nuclear weapons--if you will promise not to do that, then we will provide you peaceful nuclear technology,'' it is almost impossible for that peaceful technology to end up in a nuclear weapons program if that is the country's ultimate desire. And, in the case of India, for whatever reasons it decided it was in its national interest to produce a nuclear weapon, apparently it used the product of this Atoms for Peace peaceful nuclear program as part of its weapon program in violation of the treaty. But for the United States, or Canada, or the other nuclear powers of the world to complain about this would require us to have to admit to something that we are not about to admit; namely, that these treaties don't work; that there is no way to enforce them; and that, in point of fact, a program that we had every hope would be a success--the Atoms for Peace Program--has in fact helped to contribute to the development of a nuclear weapon by the country of India. The article goes on to make some other points that I think are important; that is, that the country of India has broken several promises here in the development of its nuclear weaponry; that it had always complained about the charter of the new International Atomic Energy Agency in the 1950s. The article points out: It was duplicity in carrying out the Atoms for Peace agreements in the 1960's. It undermined the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty with its ``peaceful'' bomb of 1974. That is referring to the fact that the Indians got around the violation by claiming that the bomb they exploded was for peaceful purposes. And apparently the United States looked the other way. But the article goes on to note, ``Despite this history, each new generation of American policymakers thinks that by being a little more accommodating''--for countries like India--we will then gain their restraint and their acceptance of the nuclear controls that we would like to place upon them. Of course, India is not alone in this. I am not being any more critical of India than I would be of other countries that would be engaged in the same kind of conduct. But what this article concludes is ``. . .American self-deception that stems from a mix of idealism and commercial greed.'' is the reason these countries have been able to get away with this for so long-- again, ``. . .American self-deception that stems from a mix of idealism and commercial greed.'' Mr. President, that is exactly what we have seen with the desire to sell virtually anything to nobody, the argument always being, if we will not sell it to them, then someone else will, which is always an excuse for transferring technology. That we have come to learn with some sadness recently. That should not have been transferred to China, for example. We also find this concept of idealism--that if they will just sign one more treaty, if we will just get one more commitment from a country that it won't engage in conduct that we believe inimical to world peace, that just maybe, therefore, we will have the peace that we so earnestly desire. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to a nation's self- defense, it is going to do what it deems in its best interest irrespective of a piece of paper, of a treaty, of a commitment, or of a promise to the rest of the world, and it is not going to be swayed by world opinion or even by the punishment that nations or organizations may mete out. Thus, India and Pakistan were all too willing to suffer the opprobrium of the world community. They were very--I shouldn't say ``happy''--but they were willing to suffer the constraints of the economic sanctions that are automatically imposed upon them as a result of their nuclear programs and their testing, because, first of all, it is domestic politics for them, but, even more importantly, they deem it to be in their national self-interest for the preservation of their countries. You cannot expect a treaty that has been signed to prevent a country from doing what it believes is in its national self-interest. To think that the United States could, therefore, dissuade a country like North Korea or Iran or Iraq or one of the other so-called rogue nations of the world to forego the development or testing of nuclear weapons if only we could get everybody in the world to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is, I think, a ludicrous, self-deceptive, naive thought. That is why I thought the article these two gentlemen wrote and was published in the Washington Post today is so interesting, because it gives a little bit of perspective. It reminds us of how, with the best intentions, we signed treaties in the past. Part of the terms of those treaties was that we would supply atoms for peace, but when a country deemed it to be in their self-interest to use that largesse to develop their nuclear program, they did it. And after having developed their nuclear program, and this having been a violation of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, we should not find it as a surprise that they are then going to test those nuclear weapons which would, if these countries were to sign the CTBT, be a violation of that treaty as well. Mr. President, I conclude with this point. There has been some talk lately that the explosions of the Pakistani and Indian nuclear devices suggest it is now time for the Senate to take up the CTBT, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Exactly the opposite is true, as the distinguished majority leader of the Senate pointed out in a television interview a week ago last Sunday. He said it is 180 degrees wrong. He said the fact is that these two tests demonstrate that a test ban treaty will not have any effect on a country that deems it in its national self-interest to test these weapons; that a piece of paper is not going to stop them. It is interesting that in the last 2\1/2\ years, during the time that the United States has had a moratorium on testing, and that we have supposedly led world opinion in encouraging other nations not to test, five nations have tested nuclear devices--probably five. We know about France and China and now India and Pakistan, and perhaps Russia. But, you see, as to verifying whether Russia actually tested at its test site in the Novaya Zemlya, we don't know for sure whether that happened, or at least we can't discuss it publicly because the means that we have for detecting those explosions is not adequate for the verification that would be called for under the CTBT. But we know that at least four, if not five, nations have tested, and this is all during the time that the United States has been leading the way by not testing, by having a unilateral moratorium here. The only other, of course, Great Britain, has acknowledged having nuclear weapons that it hasn't tested. So world opinion, leading by example, sanctions, none of these is sufficient to prevent a country from doing what it believes is in its national self-interest. As this article points out, you just cannot rely upon a treaty or a piece of paper to prevent a country from doing what it believes it has to do to protect its national security. To do so is to fall back on that great American practice of hoping against hope and of putting our reliance in idealism and in treaties when, in fact, the answer is to always be prepared with an adequate military defense. In this case, of course, the defense is the establishment of a missile defense, which we have got to get on with building. That is a subject for another day, but the bottom line is we can always do what we can do to defend ourselves, such as building a missile defense as opposed to putting our reliance on something over which we have no control, and that is another country's behavior, even in the face of moral condemnation by world opinion and the significant economic sanctions that might be imposed by other countries as well as the United States. As I said, I will put this article in the Record. I urge my colleagues who are interested in the subject to further explore it as we debate the question of whether or not the Senate should take up the CTBT. As I said, I agree with the distinguished majority leader that these tests demonstrate that putting any reliance on that agreement would be folly and therefore far from suggesting this is the time to take it up, I suggest it is time to forget about it. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, June 15, 1998] India Cheated (By Victor Gilinsky and Paul Leventhal) You wouldn't know it from news reports, but most of the military plutonium stocks India dipped into for its recent nuclear tests came from a research project provided years ago by the United States and Canada. India had promised both countries it would not use this plutonium for bombs. If Washington and Ottawa were now to keep India to its promise, and verify this, India would lose more than half the weapons-grade plutonium for its nuclear bombs and missiles. The United States and Canada should make this an essential condition for the lifting of economic sanctions. The plutonium in question is the approximately 600 pounds-- enough for about 50 bombs--produced in India's CIRUS research reactor since it began operating in 1960. This was an ``Atoms for Peace'' reactor built by Canada and made operable by an essential 21 tons of heavy water supplied by the United States. In return for this assistance, India promised both suppliers in writing that the reactor would be reserved for ``peaceful purposes.'' India used plutonium from this reactor for its 1974 nuclear explosion. When the facts emerged, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi insisted there had been no violation of the peaceful- use commitments because India had set off a ``peaceful nuclear explosion.'' The Indian scientist then in charge, Raja Ramanna, now has admitted it was a bomb all along. And India now has declared itself a nuclear-weapons state on the basis of its current tests. With the decades-old ``peaceful'' pretense stripped away, the United States and Canada should make unambiguously clear that India may not use CIRUS plutonium for warheads or related research. The fact that neither capital has uttered a peep about this matter is symptomatic of Western complicity in the South Asian nuclear crisis and of the present paralysis in dealing with it. There is also the matter of a 1963 agreement covering two U.S.-supplied nuclear power reactors at Tarapur and their fuel. The radioactive used fuel from these reactors is in storage and contains most of India's ``reactor-grade'' plutonium. India has said it will reprocess the used fuel to extract the plutonium for use as civilian power-reactor fuel. But reactor-grade plutonium also is explosive and once separated, it could be used by India's scientists for rapid deployment in warheads. There is enough Tarapur plutonium for hundreds of them. Under the 1963 agreement, India must get U.S. approval to reprocess. India disputes this and insists it is free to reprocess the used fuel at any time. The State Department, historically reluctant to tangle with India, rationalized Tarapur as an unnecessary irritant in U.S.-India relations and put this disagreement in the sleeping-dogs category. In the history of U.S.-India nuclear relations, nothing stands out so much as India's constancy in pursuing nuclear bomb-making and America's nearsightedness about Indian intentions. India fought to weaken the charter of the new International Atomic Energy Agency in the 1950s. It was duplicitous in carrying out Atoms for Peace agreements in the 1960s. It undermined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with its ``peaceful'' bomb of 1974. Despite this history, each new generation of American policymakers thinks that by being a little more accommodating it will gain Indian restraint and acceptance of nuclear controls. The Indians (they are not alone in this) have for a long time played on that characteristically American self- deception that stems from a mix of idealism and commercial greed. It is not surprising that the Indians expect the game to continue. The angry congressional reaction to discovering America's role in the 1974 test was the 1978 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act. This barred nuclear reactor and fuel exports to countries such as India that refuse to accept full international inspections. But the State Department helped India get around the law by arranging for France and later China to continue the Tarapur fuel supply. Is it any wonder the Indians do not take us seriously? Like India's 1974 test, the 1998 tests present a defining event in U.S. nonproliferation policy. We have failed to react sharply enough to head off Pakistani tests. But we still can be taken seriously in this region and by other aspiring nuclear states such as Iran. At a minimum we should insist that Indian plutonium covered by ``peaceful purposes'' agreements be unavailable for warheads, and that Tarapur fuel is not reprocessed to extract plutonium. This is by no means the whole answer, but there is no point in trying to ``engage'' India is new nuclear limitations if we do not enforce existing agreements.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 14, 1998, at 2:30 P.M. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1515, ``Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997''; S. 2111, to establish the conditions under which the Bonneville Power Administration and certain Federal agencies may enter into a memorandum of agreement concerning management of the Columbia/Snake River Basin, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to appoint an advisory committee to make recommendations regarding activities under the memorandum of understanding, and for other purposes; and S. 2117, ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1997''. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call James Beirne, Counsel at (202) 224-2564, or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 16, 1998, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following measures: S. 1398, the ``Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1997''; S. 2041, a bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Project for the reclamation and reuse of water, and for other purposes; S. 2087, the ``Wellton-Mohawk Title Transfer Act of 1998''; S. 2140, a bill to amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Denver Water Reuse project; S. 2142, the ``Pine River Project Conveyance Act''; H.R. 2165, an act to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of FERC Project Number 3862 in the State of Iowa, and for other purposes; H.R. 2217, an act to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of FERC Project Number 9248 in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; and H.R. 2841, an act to extend the time required for the construction of a hydroelectric project. Persons wishing to testify or who wish to submit written testimony should write to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information concerning the hearing, please contact James Beirne, counsel to the Subcommittee at (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to discuss today the matter pending before us, S. 1415, the tobacco legislation. It is, as we have been told by many people, one of the most expensive, complex, far-reaching legislative proposals ever considered by the U.S. Senate. The stated goal of the proposal is, of course, nonpartisan and universally recognized--the reduction of teenage smoking. We all agree on that. What a parent wants is for his or her children to grow up healthy and strong. No parent really desires that their children become addicted to tobacco use. The issue is, what is the best way of achieving that goal, to go about discouraging teen smoking and highlighting the dangerous health risks associated with tobacco while also preserving individual adult liberties. At the Federal level, I think we should also remind ourselves that underage smoking is, at this time, illegal in all 50 States by State law. I think that as the Senate considers this legislation, we should keep some fundamental principles in mind and they should be part of any legislation we should eventually adopt. Specifically, I think our legislation should include the following components: One, we should ensure that teen smoking is reduced. There are a variety of mechanisms for doing that, including making vending machines inaccessible to children, conducting an advertising campaign specifically directed toward children's tobacco use. I think we should ensure that any tobacco tax increase does not create a black market. It is very difficult to know the magic point at which you have raised the price enough to discourage its use without having, however, raised it so much that you create a black market. I think it is probably very difficult to do that, as testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee has confirmed. I think we need to ensure that proceeds raised by any tax increase are primarily used for health-related purposes, such as Medicare, research for NIH, reimbursement to the States for their Medicaid expenses, particularly associated with tobacco illnesses, and increasing the self-employed health care tax deduction to 100 percent. In that regard, incidentally, if there are excess moneys left over from a tax, I think we should return it to the people. We could do that, among other ways, by significantly reducing the marriage penalty which is currently built into the Tax Code, that proposal already having been made by Senator Gramm. I think another principle that should be embodied in this legislation is to ensure that proceeds not be used to create new, or expand existing, non-health-care-related Federal programs. One of the worst things this body could do is to impose a huge new tax ostensibly relating to tobacco use and curing its effects but, in fact, generating money to serve totally unrelated purposes, as some of our colleagues suggest. That would be wrong. I think another principle that should be embodied in any legislation we adopt is that attorneys involved in the litigation regarding tobacco not reap windfall profits at the expense of these education and smoking prevention programs, particularly when they are established for kids. Finally, I think we should ensure that no provisions are included that are virtually certain to later be adjudged to violate the first amendment's protection to speech or other constitutional provisions. Mr. President, the rest of the time I would like to address the link between tobacco use and drug use, especially by children, because while there has been much legitimate concern expressed about the dangers of teenage smoking--and about that, as I said, I think there is no disagreement--I think there has been insufficient attention paid to children's use of drugs and abuse of drugs and the Federal Government's responsibility to deal with that problem as well. There is an even greater danger of drug addiction, and the relationship between tobacco and drugs makes it clear that, in dealing with one, we can and should deal with the other. I think our outrage should have some perspective here, and if it does, we should all agree that drug use among children is much more dangerous than tobacco use, as bad as it is. Now, I noted the connection between the two. Ironically, it appears to work both ways. For example, we have known for some time that cigarette smoking is often a precursor to drug addiction. So, obviously, this is another reason to deal with the problem of youth tobacco use. For example, a survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration reported that almost 75 percent of teens surveyed had tried cigarettes before marijuana. Moreover, a 1996 national health survey on drug abuse showed that current smokers are more likely to be heavy drinkers and illicit drug users. Equally disturbing is the apparent innovation by youth in combining tobacco and drugs. For example, some teens are now smoking cigarettes after they smoke marijuana in order to enhance their high. I learned last night that the reason for this is that apparently the methanol in some cigarettes physiologically allows greater absorption of the THC in marijuana and therefore does prolong or enhance the high. Others hollow out cigars and replace the tobacco with marijuana in order to maintain a better high. This behavior illustrates the undeniable connection between tobacco and drugs. For this reason, I support linking our effort to reduce teen smoking with that expanded antidrug effort. I believe we have to keep in mind recent polls which show that the parents of this country are much more concerned about drug use than tobacco use. Their No. 1 fear is their children will become involved in illegal drug use. By contrast, in the May 1998 survey published by The Polling Company, a very recent survey, parental concern about juvenile tobacco use ranks No. 6 on the list. Only 3 percent of the parents cited that, whereas with respect to the No. 1 concern, drug use, 39 percent of the parents mentioned that as their primary concern with respect to their children. According to Centers for Disease Control research, recently speaking to the New York Times, some kids maintain an illegal drug high by using tobacco, the same point that I had made earlier. And, obviously, what this means is for these kids illegal drugs are the gateway to tobacco use, and not the reverse, as I indicated earlier. Drugs should be taken at least as seriously as tobacco. The two are undeniably linked. In dealing with one, we should deal with the other. I believe, therefore, that our effort to reduce teen smoking has to be tied to a renewed Federal commitment to reduce marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine use among both youth and adults. Incidentally, if we do that by a comparable amount, we will be reflecting the purpose of the Ashcroft proposal that has been presented to the Senate. Let us look at some of the disturbing statistics. Prior to 1992, illegal drug use by high school seniors had fallen sharply, from 30 percent in 1985 to 14 percent in 1992. This is a very important statistic, because today people say we are losing the war on drugs, we can't win it, and therefore we ought to give up. Obviously, if we had said the same thing about tobacco use, we wouldn't be engaged in this important effort today to try to reduce tobacco use. But the people who say we have lost the war on drugs are wrong because of the statistic that I just cited. Once this country became engaged in the war on drugs, particularly trying to reduce the use of drugs in schools, the use by schoolkids of drugs dropped dramatically. It was cut in half. Again, remember the statistics I am talking about. When we began this effort in about 1985, remember we created a drug czar's office, and Bill Bennett and others went out and campaigned fervently against drug use by kids. From 1985 to 1992, illegal drug use by high school seniors fell from 30 percent to 14 percent. So we were clearly making progress. We had made substantial progress. We were doing good. What happened after 1992? The process reversed. And, frankly, the reason for that is inattention, and in some cases downright hostility to the effort by the Clinton administration, and only recently reversed by the appointment of Gen. Barry McCaffrey as the drug czar. I think we can see that once we began to reassert our effort, we have begun to just barely see a little bit of progress. During the first Clinton administration, illegal drug use among high school students doubled. Heroin use for 8th and 12th graders has more than doubled in the last 5 years. By 1996, one in four high school seniors and sophomores reported using drugs in the previous 30 days; 15 percent of 8th graders reported using drugs in the previous 30 days. So the point of these statistics is that once we became engaged in the war on drugs, we dramatically reduced their use by kids. We cut it in half. What happened when we stopped? It went right back to where it had been. Equally disturbing about our inattention to this problem over the last 5 years is the fact that, as a result, drug users are getting younger and younger. A survey last year by the Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University showed that 500,000 eighth graders began using marijuana in sixth and seventh grades. As we all know, there are more victims, incidentally, in this drug use than just the user because, of course, drugs are linked to crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 36 percent of convicted jail inmates said that they were using drugs at the time of their offense in 1996. That was compared to 27 percent in 1989. So by a third we found more drug use among those people committing crimes. Moreover, 16 percent of convicted jail inmates said they had committed their offense to get money for drugs. We believe the statistics are much higher. But at least it is astonishing that that number would admit that they committed their crimes in order to get drugs. We know one in four property and drug offenders had committed their crimes to get money for drugs. And in a place like Arizona, where you have such high property crime rates, we know the strong connection between the two. In my hometown of Phoenix, for example, we lead the country in another kind of theft--postal theft by addicts in order to get money. According to the postal inspector, 90 percent of these thefts are committed by meth addicts. It is their preferred method of maintaining their high. I also note, Mr. President, that in reminding ourselves of the connection between drug use and crime, to make the point that drug use is not a victimless crime, we should also think of the individual drug user and his or her family. I recently held a field hearing in Phoenix primarily on the subject of methamphetamine use and the costs to society of having to clean up the meth laboratories and the environmental concerns and the dangers to people as a result of these toxic substances in their midst. But one of the witnesses was a young woman named Heather, a student, who told us about her beginning the use of drugs, starting with a free offer of drugs when she was in grade school, and working on up through the use of harder and harder drugs until, by her own words, she was a ``mess'' by the time she was in high school. She noted the fact that she wasn't the only person who was affected by her drug use. Her friends, her family, and, in particular, her mother were deeply affected by what she went through and what they had to bear as a result of her drug use. Fortunately, she was one of the ones who decided to try to kick the habit, and, after several difficult tries, appears now to be on a path of recovery and abstinence and of getting her life turned around. But it is a terrible, terrible struggle for anyone, but certainly including kids who have become addicted to drugs, to try to get off of the drugs and turn their life around. In the context of the tobacco debate, I just ask everyone to think about this for a minute. We all get used to doing certain things that we know aren't good for us. It is hard to change our habits. We all, most of us at least when you get to our age, would like to lose a little more weight. We don't like the fact that gravity has its inevitable impact on our bodies, and we begin to not quite look like we did when we were 20 years old. We would like to eat a little less and have more self-discipline about our weight. It is hard to do. We would like to discipline ourselves to do other things. It is hard to do. We get to tobacco use, and we know it really becomes hard because there are physiological addictive qualities to nicotine that makes us crave tobacco. For many people, it is very, very hard to stop using tobacco as a result of that addictive quality. But as hard as that is, it is orders of magnitude more difficult for hard drug users and even soft drug users to stop their behavior to get over their addiction. It is much, much harder. When you hear the story of a young woman like Heather and what she has gone through and how difficult it was for her, I think it makes it crystal clear to us that as we are focused on tobacco and because of the connection between tobacco and drugs it is also very important for us to take this opportunity at this time to also recommit ourselves to fight this war on drugs for the sake of the people who are becoming addicted to drugs every day, for the sake of their friends and the sake of their families, as well as the rest of us in society who end up bearing the costs of their addiction. Because of the seriousness of this increase in drug use by our youth, I am very troubled that the goal of the administration in its 1998 National Drug Control Strategy is not more ambitious. What is its goal? Its goal is to get us back, a couple of years after the turn of the century, to where we were when President Clinton took office. That is not only not very ambitious, but I think we could say it does not even begin to express the degree of commitment that we ought to be making. For the sake of the kids who at least are of junior high age today, we have to do better than that. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Gramm-Domenici-Kyl Teenage Health Preservation Act. Let me just tell you a little bit about what the Teenage Health Preservation Act will do and why we think it is so important to be included within this tobacco legislation. Because of the link between underage tobacco use, illegal drugs, and crime, as I indicated earlier, we have established several important provisions in this legislation that I think get to each of those problems. First, we would establish a $5 billion antismoking, antidrug advertising campaign. We know that kids watch a lot of television. We know that they are susceptible to advertising. We know that there can be some very effective, good advertising telling them why they should not take on drugs or tobacco use. We would establish a five-member commission, with members nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, responsible for developing a comprehensive antidrug and antismoking advertising campaign. This $5 billion over 5 years would be funded out of the National Teenage Health Security Trust Fund established under the legislation. We also establish some antidrug and antismoking provisions and penalties, increasing, for example, by 50 percent the drug interdiction budgets of the Customs Service, Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense for activities along the U.S.-Mexican border and the Caribbean region; doubling the number of Border Patrol agents to achieve a level of 15,000 over the next 5 years; increasing the law enforcement budgets of the DEA and FBI by 25 percent; adopting the McCain antismuggling language which directs the Treasury Department to require the placement of a unique serial number on each pack of cigarettes to assist in determining the location and date of production. It would impose penalties of not less than 10 years of imprisonment for any adult who sells drugs to a minor, and a second offense would be life in prison. We would establish a Federal penalty of not less than 20 years for any person convicted of smuggling illegal drugs into the United States and, again, for a second offense, a penalty of life imprisonment. We would impose a fine of up to $100,000 and a term of imprisonment of up to 5 years for smuggling cigarettes into the United States. Those who would knowingly sell smuggled cigarettes to teenagers would face up to a year in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. Mr. President, let me just note, some of these fines may sound very drastic, but if we are going to get serious about this problem we have to do some very different kinds of things. I don't think it is too much to say that a fine up to $10,000 and up to a year in prison is too much for people who are smuggling cigarettes and selling them to teenagers, if we are really serious about this problem. We would suspend Federal student loan eligibility for teenagers who use drugs or purchase cigarettes. The penalty for drug convictions would be a year's suspension of eligibility for Federal student loans, and a second offense would be a permanent loss of eligibility for student loans. For teen cigarette purchase, it would be a warning the first time around, a 6-months suspension of eligibility for the second offense, and a year's suspension for the third offense. So there would be important penalties attached to all of these. We would establish a Teenage Health Security block grant program to the States. The distribution of the funds is linked to State adoption of sanctions for teenage tobacco use. The States themselves need to do more to enforce their already existing laws against youth smoking. We would adopt the McCain requirement that warning statements on cigarette packages take up not less than 25 percent of the upper space on the pack on the front and back of each package. Importantly, as I said before, vending machine sale of cigarettes would be restricted to areas that are not accessible to children or teenagers. The payment that would be called for here, we think, should be capped at a per-pack amount that is estimated to be below the trigger point of significantly increased black market activity. After financing the tax reductions--in other words, the self-employed health insurance deduction that we talked about earlier--all of the remaining amounts would be deposited in a new National Teenage Health Security Trust Fund. We think the total amount of the tax that would be required in this case would be on the order of 75 cents per pack. We think that full deductibility of health insurance and smoking cessation programs is called for, and therefore under this legislation we would provide for an accelerated phase-in of a 100-percent deductibility of health care insurance for the self-employed, to be effective January 1, 1999. We would allow all workers not covered by an employer-provided insurance to deduct fully the cost of health insurance. This is the Roth proposal on the above-the-line deduction, so to speak. In addition, low-income working taxpayers who are eligible for the earned-income tax credit could take advantage of the health insurance deduction. Specifically, the cost of health insurance premiums would be excluded from their modified adjusted gross income for purposes of the earned-income tax credit. This would not apply to an individual covered by employer-provided health insurance or by Medicaid. The cost of an FDA-approved smoking cessation program would be deductible and treated as an above-the-line deduction as well. I mentioned the National Teenage Health Security Trust Fund in this proposal. It would finance all the programs and initiatives which are created by the legislation. The Department of the Treasury would establish an accounting mechanism necessary to ensure that the trust fund deposits and outlays are credited properly, and all expenditures from the fund would be outside the spending caps, but all would have to be appropriated on an annual basis. There would be no new entitlement or mandatory spending programs. No distributions or expenditures from the fund would be permitted for any purpose other than a specific authorization provided in the Teenage Health Preservation Act. Any moneys remaining in the Trust Fund after the annual appropriations process has concluded would be transferred to Medicare. I mention the increased funds for the National Institutes of Health. This legislation would earmark an additional $5 billion over the next 5 years from the trust fund to the NIH in addition to--in addition to-- the $15.5 billion increases over 5 years already provided in our budget resolution of this year. With regard to the State settlements with tobacco companies, we would guarantee the right of tobacco companies and the individual States to enter into legally binding--within the border of each State--settlement agreements, including limiting liability if that is what the States negotiated.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes to conclude my remarks.

Mr. KYL. Thank you. I will conclude with this brief description. The windfall profits tax on lawyers' fees that I mentioned earlier would provide, for States where there have been tobacco settlements reached, lawyer fees above $1,000 per hour but below $1,500 an hour would be subject to a surtax of 20 percent, and fees in excess of $1,500 an hour would be subject to a surtax of 40 percent. Bear in mind the level of fees I am talking about. While a good lawyer today might charge up to $200, $250 an hour--you know, the really superstars, maybe even $300 or $400 an hour--we are talking about $1,500 an hour here before this would kick in. But, amazingly, there are some lawyers who are getting far more than that in these tobacco settlements. There are some other provisions in here, but I will not go into the details in the interests of time. Also pending before us right now is the Coverdell-Craig-Abraham Drug Free Neighborhoods Act. I also strongly support that legislation. That legislation has been adequately described by Senator Coverdell a little bit earlier this afternoon. It has the drug-free teen drivers provision, the drug-free schools provision, which is very important. It emphasizes drug-free workplaces. I think it is very important for us to recognize that we are not going to be able to have drug-free workplaces if it is possible for people in this country to use drugs legally. Finally, there are key provisions for drug-free communities support. I might just note, too, a couple of the very specific provisions of the bill that I particularly like. It bans free needles for drug addicts and has a very important money laundering provision and a registration of convicted drug dealers. These are some important things that we can be doing to enhance the tobacco legislation before us to apply to the drug problem that also faces our youth today. We can't let this opportunity slip to address the national drug problem at the same time that we are addressing the important tobacco issue. Underage smoking is a serious problem, but smoking doesn't result in the crimes against the person and property that illegal drug use does. We have to focus at least as much attention on the problem of illegal drug use as on the problem of underage smoking. It is important to remember, Mr. President, that underage smoking represents only 2 percent of all smoking occurring in the United States. Teenage drug addiction is a critical and growing problem within this country. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jim Savage of my staff be accorded floor privileges during my remarks.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the eulogy I delivered at the funeral for the former U.S. Senator from Arizona, Barry Goldwater, in Tempe, Arizona on June 3, 1998, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate those remarks of the Senator from South Carolina who, of course, served with Senator Goldwater probably longer than anybody else in this body. Senator Goldwater first came to the Senate in 1952 and completed his service in the U.S. Senate in 1987. And, of course, we recall the time- out when he ran for President of the United States. But the first thing about his service to this country, obviously, for us to note is his service as a U.S. Senator, serving right here on this floor. Mr. President, I would like to talk about Senator Goldwater for just a few minutes this morning but focus on a couple of other aspects of his life. It is clear that for many of us, particularly my generation, he was an inspiration for us to become involved in politics and to approach it from what he called a ``commonsense conservative point of view.'' I remember in 1960 meeting him when I was a student at the University of Arizona in Tucson, AZ. He cared a lot about young people and was always willing to come to the university and talk to us. I had read the ``Conscience of a Conservative'' and was greatly impressed with its commonsense approach to politics at the time. Everywhere I have gone over the years--and when I have been with Senator Goldwater--I have been impressed with the fact that people from all over the country would come up to him and say, ``Senator Goldwater, you're the reason I got involved in politics. Yours was the first campaign that I ever got involved in'' or ``It was your election that was the first time I voted.'' He inspired Americans all over the country to become more involved in politics and, as I said, to approach politics from his commonsense conservative point of view. For the United States as a whole, I think our history will reflect the fact that Senator Goldwater was one of the three people who really began the modern conservative movement in this country. I think he was the first, along with Bill Buckley, providing a lot of the intellectual stimulus for the conservative movement through his publication, the National Review. And, of course, Senator Goldwater paved the way later for Ronald Reagan to become elected by the American people and to serve two terms with the tremendous conservative mandate of the American people. I think it is generally acknowledged that without Senator Goldwater's activity here in the U.S. Senate, and also in his activities as a Presidential candidate in 1964, that the ascendancy of the Ronald Reagan candidacy and his election by the American people would not have occurred. So as a result, I think those of us here in the Senate reflect not only on his service here in the Senate as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, his service and very strong support for a strong national defense for the United States, but also for being part of the beginning of the conservative movement in this country. I find it interesting that today most people call themselves conservatives in the same way that Barry Goldwater did all the way back in 1958, 1960, when he first came here. Let me talk just a little bit about Senator Goldwater in a different sense, not in the sense of a Senator in this body, not in the sense of a creator of the modern conservative movement in this country, but rather as the individual, because in Arizona a lot of people know Barry Goldwater a little bit differently, a lot of people whom no one else knows. They are not the big important people of the world, they are people who grew up with Senator Goldwater. They are Navajo Indians whom he got to know when he helped to run his family's trading post on the Navajo Indian reservation. They are people all over the State with whom he visited when he traveled the State, hiked it, and photographed it. There are veterans he visited with, people in the military all over the country, but particularly in Arizona, with whom he was very closely associated. These are the people Barry Goldwater would reminisce with me about when I went to his home and visited with him, long after his Government service came to an end. In fact, when I went to his house to visit with him, I expected him to talk about Senate business and get advice from him about what we should be doing here. He didn't want to talk about that. He wanted to reminisce about people he had known way back when--the people who really mattered to him most. They weren't kings, they weren't presidents, and they weren't Senators; they were regular folks from whom he took a great deal of learning. If you read ``Conscience of a Conservative'' again, and even if you review the speech that he gave when he accepted the party's nomination in 1964 to run for President, you will see throughout a strong reference to the economic sense of people and the nature of people. He talked, in ``Conscience of a Conservative,'' about the inherent nature of people, and he criticized some of his liberal friends for wanting to remake people in their image, basically, through Government action. His point was, look, people are the way God made them, for better or for worse; we should recognize that human nature and formulate Government policies to help permit people to live as they would as human beings, without trying to have Government make them into a particular type of person or to direct their activities in a particular way. That is why he became known as the great friend of freedom. He was a person who did not believe Government should tell people what to do or even shouldn't tell people a great deal, because it would prevent them from helping to learn themselves. He understood human nature. How did he come to that understanding? Part of it is because he really liked people and he liked to be with people. He learned from them what it was that was the essence of the character of man. I think a lot of that began, as I said, when he was living on the Navajo Indian reservation, tending to his family's trading post. The photographs he has taken, particularly in his early life, frequently are commented upon as remarkable for capturing something very special, some inner quality of the people he photographed. A lot of the people he photographed were on the Navajo Indian reservation and the Hopi Indian reservation. I have one of his photographs hanging in my office of a young Navajo girl. There is something very, very special about that. Every one of the photographs that he took of the people, you almost feel that you know that person, that it is a very special person. There is sort of an inner quality that comes out in his photographs. How did he do that? He didn't have the greatest camera equipment at the time, although he has always been a fine photographer. He was somehow able to capture the essence of people through his photography. I think part of it is because he got to know the people and he would talk to them and ask them very nicely if they would mind being photographed. He was able, therefore, to capture that essence of humanity that I think most of us miss. We are all too busy, too busy with the big important things in life. Barry Goldwater focused a lot on the little things in life, which is another reason he was such a great photographer of Arizona landscape. He found beauty in places that many of us would have passed over because we were in a hurry. Now we reflect on those photographs and think, how could anyone have captured that the way he did? Some of which, incidentally, Mr. President, are very valuable because they show, for example, trips down the Grand Canyon in areas that are now dammed up and we will never see them the way he saw them and the way the photographs captured them. My point here is that in recent years when I visited with Senator Goldwater, I learned a lot more from him about people than I did about political philosophy and what we should be doing with these great momentous decisions here that we debate on the Senate floor. In this respect, Senator Goldwater was a lot like my own father, who also had the privilege of serving in the U.S. Congress, representing the State of Iowa. He, too, is a great photographer. And he, too, sees that something special in people and in places that he has been able to photograph. He, too, thinks a great deal about individual people and what they meant. And he, too, likes to reminisce about people in his earlier years. I suppose that happens to all of us when we get a little bit older, but part of it is because not only do we remember those people, but we reflect, now, upon an entire life and we understand what is important and what isn't. We understand that part of what is really important about life is the people we got to know and what we have learned from them. I learned a great deal from my father, just as I have from Senator Goldwater, about human nature. I think that knowledge is better for us as public servants than any other schooling we could get or any other studying we could do. In reflecting on Senator Goldwater's life after he passed away on Friday, it just occurred to me that the things I want to share about him are these reflections about the individuals he knew and what he learned from them, something that probably will not be greatly commented upon by others who will reflect upon his service here in the Senate, his strong support for national defense, his creation of the modern conservative movement--as I said, his leading of that movement through much of the period of the 1960s. All of that was very, very important. That is why he will go down in the history books as a great American leader, as a great American patriot. But as I said, he was also, to me, a teacher. One of the reasons for his greatness was the fact that he understood the importance of the little things in life, the little things that create beauty, the little things that make us all what we are. I think if more people understood that human nature as Senator Goldwater did, because he experienced it so much in his early life, that all of us in this body and in the other body would be much better representatives of the people for whom we work, because we would better understand their desires, their hopes, their needs, and perhaps would better be able to reflect those hopes, needs, and desires in the kind of policy that we help to set here in Washington, DC. A final point in closing, Mr. President. Senator Goldwater, of course, was very blunt and outspoken. I think a little bit of that would go a long way these days, too--to say what we really think, irrespective of the political consequences. Now, some have said he could afford to do that because in 1964 he was running a race that he couldn't win and so he had the luxury, in effect, of just saying what was on his mind. If you know Barry Goldwater, he didn't just limit it to the 1964 campaign; he said what was on his mind, regardless of the circumstances, when he was beginning in politics and all the way through to the day he died. All of us, I think, could benefit by trying to be a little bit more candid in how we express ourselves. He and Ronald Reagan, I think, found the same thing. When you do that, it is surprising how appreciative people are and how politically popular, sometimes, you can be by simply saying what is on your mind. People understand when you are politicking versus when you are talking from the heart. It is not hard for people to see through what most of us say. That is why a lot of politicians do not have very good reputations. I think if more of us reflected on the way Barry Goldwater did it, we would find it is not only a more candid approach but it also can have very good benefits for people to see that all of us are willing to express ourselves in a very candid and a very open way. So he has taught us a great deal. I think as people put the parts of his life together, it all fits together in a mosaic that created a unique individual. We will find additional lessons to take from his long and very productive life. I am looking forward, Mr. President, to visiting with other Members of this body to learn of their experiences with Senator Goldwater, because of course I didn't have the opportunity to serve with him. In the time that he was here, Senator Goldwater, I think, represented Arizona in a way that permitted those of us in Arizona to refer to him as Mr. Arizona, a person who reflected really a great deal about our own State. Mr. President, it is from that standpoint that I approach, not with a great deal of sadness, but rather with some degree of celebration, the fact that he was able to serve in this body so long, to represent the State of Arizona for so long, to be really reflective of our State, and he will go down in the history books not as a great national and international figure, but probably as the most important and famous Arizonan, at least in my lifetime, and someone who I think all of us in Arizona were proud to have as a representative of our State. I am looking forward to joining many of my colleagues Wednesday in Phoenix at his funeral which, as his wife told me, will be more of a celebration of his life and of all of the things that he did, both for his State and for this country. I am sure we will hear a lot of stories and do a lot of laughing about Barry--and a lot of crying about the fact that he is gone. But the fact of the matter is that we have an opportunity to reflect on an individual who we have loved very much, and we want to make the most of that opportunity. Mr. President, I wanted to come here this morning to give a few reflections, not in the usual vein of his political accomplishments and what he did as a Senator, but more what I saw in him, especially in his later years, as an individual who just wanted to be remembered as an honest man. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, let me say that I think it is a good thing that we are finally beginning to spend gas tax money on the purpose for which the tax was collected in the first place; namely, our highway and transit systems in this country. But I don't think it is a good thing that there are winners and losers in the process depending upon who you are. Mr. President, I have a hard time justifying this legislation to my constituents in Arizona who continue to ask me why it is that the fastest growing State in the country that sends $1 to Washington in gas tax continues to get less than $1 back. As a matter of fact, because we are a Western State, there is also supposed to be some consideration given to the fact that the wide open spaces require more highways, as is the case with many of the other Western States. But it is not to be. Instead, historically Arizona has gotten 86 cents on the dollar. And, under the original Senate bill, we were supposedly guaranteed that Arizona would receive the generous sum of 91.5 cents on the dollar. It now turns out that it will be 90.5 cents on the dollar. Mr. President, I am not here asking that Arizona receive something extra, unlike a lot of the people who are still negotiating in the cloakroom here. I am not asking for money for special projects. But I am asking why it is that the donor States--the States that send more than they receive--can't eventually hope to get some equity in this program. What we are doing here is locking in for 6 years a continued unfair program for the 18 or so States that contribute more than they receive. Mr. President, this reminds me a little bit of the ``Animal Farm'' story of George Orwell of 1946. It turns out that all the animals in the barnyard were equal, except that some were more equal than others. That is the way it is with the States of the Union here. As I said, you have a fast-growing Western State like Arizona, the fastest in the country, that receives, or would receive under this legislation, 90.5 cents for every dollar sent to Washington. How will some of the other States make out? The majority leader pointed out that Senator Stevens would probably be pretty happy with what Alaska got under the bill. Instead, I would be happy if I got $5- plus for every dollar that I sent, which is what Alaska will receive. I would be happy if I were in Connecticut and I got $1.52 for every dollar I sent; or Delaware, $1.54. These are very small States, by the way. Montana, a large State--we are supposed to get a little extra consideration for the size--gets $2-plus back; my fellow Western States of New Mexico and Nevada each get more than $1 back--$1.14 and $1.18, respectively. The Senator from West Virginia, his State receives $1.41 back. Another small State, Vermont, $1.76; South Dakota, $2; Pennsylvania, $1.20. It turns out that who you are matters more in this process of deciding how this money that everybody in the country pays-- that matters more than equity. Once we have an opportunity to review the bill--there has been one copy available, and everybody has had to try to sort through that one copy--I think there are going to be a lot of criticisms of how this money was allocated. There will also be a lot of questions asked, many of which have been raised here already. How about the offsets? This is all supposed to come out equally, so that we are not spending more than we are taking in. As the Senator from New Mexico pointed out, we are now going to use the more generous OMB figures than the CBO figures which we have always insisted on using in the past because we think they are more accurate. That would permit us, in effect, to exceed the budget caps. There is a significant question of the appropriators' authority, which Senator Stevens raised. There are questions about the earmarks. As far as I can tell from the information I have, they don't add up. When the bill left the Senate, the formulas for the individual State projects called earmarks were supposed to be included within the State's formula allocation. But apparently that is not true under this bill, at least to the extent of $200 million; I don't know beyond that. Mr. President, probably the most distressing thing about this is that most of the Senators who are going to vote on this will not know what is in the bill, and, therefore, they may have a bit of a hard time explaining to their constituents later on when problems are raised why they were in such a hurry to vote on this. We lose nothing by waiting until we have an opportunity to review this. There is authority for States to continue to spend and charge it against this allocation. That has expired. We can extend that for another 10 days, until we get back. But this bill is over $200 billion, one of the largest spending bills that this Senate, this Congress, will have ever authorized, and yet we don't know most of what is in the bill. As I said, what I do know I don't like, because it appears that once again a few States are being discriminated against in order that other States, which are represented heavily on the committees that make the decisions, will get more than their fair share. Mr. President, I regret to have to be this critical, but I think it has to be said very plainly. When I have an opportunity to find out a little bit more about it, as the staff is now being made available to us--they have been very busy working all through the night, as I understand it, trying to get this finally negotiated--as they are made available to us, we will be able to understand some additional information about this. I intend to then return and comment some more. But I did want to make the point right now that I think this is not a good process. We are hurrying too much. We are spending too much. We aren't going to be able to offset this, probably, under the estimates that have been provided. There are too many questions. And the numbers don't add up. To the extent that the States that are making contributions in excess of the amount that they receive back and are hoping to receive some ultimate relief, it appears that we are locked in for a 5- or 6-year period and that is not to be and, therefore, that our citizens will continue to be discriminated against. Mr. President, for all of those reasons I am going to be very disappointed to have to change the vote I cast when I supported this bill earlier because I thought we were making progress in changing the formula. I wanted to assist our leadership in moving toward the concept that the gas tax dollars will at least be spent on highway and transit needs, that I will reluctantly have to vote no on this and just hope in the future, in the interests of States that are donor States here, that we can get a more equitable distribution of these funds.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized after the Senator from New Mexico. The Senators speaking now are more directly involved in the action going on here. Therefore, they will explain to the rest of us what is occurring. I wanted to ensure that they had an opportunity to speak. I would like the opportunity to speak after the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. There is no time on this side. I do not know about the other side.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I inquire, if all time has been yielded back, the amendment has been accepted, are we not ready to proceed to the vote on final passage?

Mr. KYL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there is a reason why this bill picks August 8, 1995, as the date after which Russian companies should be sanctioned for their proliferation behavior. The reason for this is very simple: August 8, 1995, was the date upon which Russia joined the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). In so doing, the Russian Government undertook an international obligation to curtail its proliferation behavior. Unfortunately, as we have seen, the Government has not lived up to that pledge. At the time that the United States favored Russian membership in the MTCR, the Senate was assured by the Clinton Administration that Russia had all of the necessary, effective export controls in place. Well, we see just how accurate that claim proved to be. Two years later the United States began uncovering evidence of the degree to which Russian assistance has sped up Iran's missile program. In retrospect, clearly the United States should have waited until an effective, Russian export control regime had been established before favoring Russian membership in the MTCR. As an aside, I hope the Clinton Administration will learn from this experience. There has been a great deal of talk lately about encouraging China to join the MTCR. I would hope that the United States would wait an appropriate period of time to see whether China's export controls are truly effective enough to warrant membership in the MTCR. Finally, I have reservations about the Levin amendment, because it seeks--at a minimum--to ``grandfather'' Russian missile proliferation activities before January 22, 1998. But I will not oppose this amendment because, among other things, proliferation on the part of these companies has been so rampant even since January 22, 1998 that few companies in Russia, if any, will benefit from this shift in dates.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as I just noted, there are actually two parts of this legislation. One of them has to do with the implementation of the chemical weapons treaty which was ratified in the Senate last year. The legislation passed about a year ago. It was finally dealt with by the House, and comes back to us. I do not know of any objection to it. And I will not take the time to summarize it except to say that in general terms it makes it a crime for Americans to produce or use or manufacture these chemical weapons. It provides protections for American citizens and businesses in terms of search and seizure and takings, so that with respect to the inspection regime that is established under the treaty, there is protection of American citizens' constitutional rights, and if anyone has a question about that legislation, I am prepared to try to answer that today. But by far and away the issue that is before us today of most interest to Members is, of course, the Russian missile assistance to Iran. The majority leader spoke eloquently on the patience that the Senate has exercised in withholding action on this important legislation until this time. But there does come a time when, as the majority leader said, the Senate does have to finally act here. We believe that by passing this legislation, it will actually have a positive impact on the leadership of Russia which has had a very difficult time ensuring that the assistance provided to Iran is stopped. Now, one might say, ``Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense if it is the policy of the Russian Government that this assistance not be transferred to Iran.'' But the fact of the matter is, it is difficult for the Russian Government, as the majority leader said, to ensure that there is no transfer of technology or material to the Iranian missile program. When confronted with evidence that this has occurred, in some cases the Russian Government appears to have tried to take action against it; in other cases, as the majority leader said, that has not happened. So this legislation should provide a basis not only for the United States to specifically direct attention to the matter, but also for the Russian Government to have a very specific basis for enforcing its laws and policies against the providing of such technology to Iran. Mr. President, let me just outline in very brief terms some of the open-source information about the kind of technology and other assistance that has been provided by Russian firms, individuals, and other entities to the Iranian program. One of the Russian ICBM missiles--or at least intermediate-range missile--is called an SS-4 in our terminology. And important missile components and instructions of how to build that missile have been sent to the Iranians. This is important because this missile has a much greater capability than the one that is most likely to be produced soon. This missile, in the Iranian term, is called the Shahab-4. It would have the capability of reaching cities in Europe, Mr. President. So it is not just a regional weapon, but a weapon that will challenge countries in Europe as well as in the Middle East. That weapon, according to open-source material, could be deployable within as little as 3 years. In addition to that, construction of a wind tunnel for missile design and manufacture of missile models, and even the sale of missile design software has occurred. Moreover, missile guidance and propulsion components, as well as the necessary advice and equipment to produce these components in Iran has been provided. In that sense, Mr. President, let me note that it is not Russians who are actually building these missiles for the Iranians, it is Russians who are providing much of the material and the assistance and the technology for the Iranians to do it themselves. So they will have an indigenous capability. In addition, more than one special metal alloy which Iran can shape into missile casings and even alloy foil in thin sheets used to shield guidance equipment had been provided, in one case, according to open- source material, was stopped in another country after it left Russia. Training of Iranian technicians at Russian institutes and the recruitment of top Russian missile specialists to work with Iran has all occurred within the most recent months or years. As I said, the Iranians are using this technology to produce two missiles: One we call the Shahab-3, the other the Shahab-4. The Shahab- 3 has a 1,300-kilometer range roughly, depending upon what kind of warhead is included on it, and is capable of targeting Israel, as well as other targets in the Middle East. According to open-source material, development of this missile could be completed in 12 to 18 months. I mentioned the Shahab-4, which is capable of reaching Central Europe, and the fact that development could be completed in 3 years. Mr. President, since the Senator from Connecticut, I think, is preparing to speak, let me just summarize one other aspect of this assistance; that is the Russian nuclear assistance to Iran, not specifically the target of this legislation, but of equal concern to us. Russia has assisted Iran in a number of ways, including a contract to construct a nuclear reactor and a deal to provide nuclear fuel for the reactor for 20 years, and to take back spent fuel for reprocessing. It has agreed to train Iranian nuclear technicians to operate the plant, to construct three additional reactors when the first contract is complete. In 1995, in response to U.S. pressure, Russia agreed to limit the scope of nuclear cooperation with Iran and canceled plans to sell gas centrifuge enrichment technology, and heavy water moderated reactors. However, Russia has exceeded the limits it agreed to place on its nuclear cooperation with Iran. According to an article in July 1997 by The Washington Post, the United States intelligence reports ``document[ed] a series of high-level technical exchanges between Russia and Iranian engineers,'' which covered matters beyond the Bushehr reactor, including advice on how to mine and process uranium. Finally, Mr. President, just this month, The Washington Times disclosed that U.S. intelligence reports indicate that Iranian nuclear officials were negotiating to purchase tritium from Russia and were slated to view a demonstration of gas centrifuge technology used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons during a visit to Moscow later this month. At a meeting just last week, we specifically asked the Russian Ambassador if he would try to see to it that that demonstration project was not held because its only purpose is to assist the uranium nuclear program. He indicated personally a desire not to see that meeting go forward, but we will see whether it does. Tritium, which I mentioned, is, of course, important for the boosting of nuclear weapons and would be an important way for the Iranians to make a nuclear technology more robust than it might be otherwise. These are serious matters. The Russian Government, whether complicity or simply negligence, has not been able to stop the transfer of these materials and this technology. The United States cannot simply sit by and hope for diplomatic actions to work. In the Senate and the House, we recently passed money for a supplemental appropriations bill which will be applied to both Israeli theater missile defense systems and the U.S. theater missile defense systems so we may at an earlier day be able to meet the threat that the Iranian missiles might pose. There may be a window of vulnerability. That is why it is important for us to try to slow down and stop the assistance that Russia is providing to Iran. This is very important legislation. I hope our colleagues will support it strongly, sending a strong signal to Russia that it should not be providing or allowing to be provided this important technology to Iran. I yield whatever time the Senator from Connecticut desires.

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

Mr. KYL. I yield the Senator from Kansas 10 minutes.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if others do not wish to speak at this time, I will. And at any time that a Member of the minority would like to make a presentation, that will certainly be all right. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters that pertain to the chemical weapons treaty implementation portion of this legislation, a letter from the Chemical Manufacturers Association and a letter from the American Forest & Paper Association.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I am informed the yeas and nays have not been requested. At this time, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, Senator Levin has time, and he is prepared to proceed.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, the amendment is acceptable to everyone on this side that I know of. Therefore, we can move the process along and have it accepted formally and conclude the debate. I think our colleagues would appreciate having the opportunity to vote. Amendment No. 2444 (Purpose: To change the date of behavior subject to sanctions relating to Iran missile proliferation)

Mr. KYL

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