Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, May 22, 1998, to hold a business meeting.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the pendency of H.R. 2709, and actually beginning now, David Stephens and John Rood of my staff be permitted to be on the floor.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I introduced a bill to transfer title to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in Yuma, Arizona from the Federal Government to the project beneficiaries. The repayment obligation for construction costs was fully satisfied as of May 30, 1987. This bill is the product of intensive negotiations between the project beneficiaries and the Bureau of Reclamation and will be the subject of a hearing in the Water and Power Subcommittee on June 9. At that time, I will hear from all interested parties about how to successfully complete this project transfer. As you may know, Mr. President, numerous project transfers have been proposed, both in this session of Congress and the 104th Session. Thus far, none have been completed. With this bill, we in Arizona hope to reverse that trend. In March of this year, I met with Patty Beneke, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science, and Bob Johnson, Regional Director for the Bureau of Reclamation, and they assured me that the Wellton-Mohawk project was a perfect example of the kind of project that should transfer under the administration's 1995 Framework for Transfer. I believe Bob Johnson referred to this project as ``low-hanging fruit.'' I assume by that, he meant that it could transfer quickly and easily. I hope this is the case. The Wellton-Mohawk project is located in Yuma County, Arizona and irrigates approximately 63,000 acres of prime agricultural lands. This irrigation district is a major contributor to the economy of Yuma County--the largest agriculturally developed county in Arizona--and posts approximately three-quarters of a billion dollars in annual agricultural sales. Transfer of title from the Federal Government will affect neither the productivity nor the efficiency of the irrigation district. I believe that transfer would only enhance the District's productivity. Both sides stand to benefit from this title transfer. The District looks forward to a reduction in Federal Government involvement; would benefit from better land-management opportunities; and would have the opportunity to assure increased protection of the environmental values of the Gila River riparian habitat. The Federal Government benefits, too. A successful title transfer would advance the administration's stated goal of reduction in government as well as eliminate the responsibility for managing the patchwork of lands that make up the District. The Bureau of Reclamation would be relieved of the administrative and financial burden of facilities oversight currently required due to Federal ownership. In negotiations, the Bureau of Reclamation has raised several issues that need to be addressed in order to effect a successful transfer. These issues include environmental mitigation, administrative costs, identification and valuation of lands, and agricultural return flows. One of the benefits of my legislation is that it provides a Memorandum of Agreement, to be negotiated between the Bureau and the District, that will address all of these concerns in an open and mutually beneficial process. I am pleased thus far by the cooperation of all stakeholders. I look forward to continuing the process at the Water and Power subcommittee hearing on June 9, 1998. I thank Senator McCain for his cosponsorship of this bill, and I look forward to his support, as well as that of the rest of my colleagues, on this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I introduced a bill to transfer title to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in Yuma, Arizona from the Federal Government to the project beneficiaries. The repayment obligation for construction costs was fully satisfied as of May 30, 1987. This bill is the product of intensive negotiations between the project beneficiaries and the Bureau of Reclamation and will be the subject of a hearing in the Water and Power Subcommittee on June 9. At that time, I will hear from all interested parties about how to successfully complete this project transfer. As you may know, Mr. President, numerous project transfers have been proposed, both in this session of Congress and the 104th Session. Thus far, none have been completed. With this bill, we in Arizona hope to reverse that trend. In March of this year, I met with Patty Beneke, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science, and Bob Johnson, Regional Director for the Bureau of Reclamation, and they assured me that the Wellton-Mohawk project was a perfect example of the kind of project that should transfer under the administration's 1995 Framework for Transfer. I believe Bob Johnson referred to this project as ``low-hanging fruit.'' I assume by that, he meant that it could transfer quickly and easily. I hope this is the case. The Wellton-Mohawk project is located in Yuma County, Arizona and irrigates approximately 63,000 acres of prime agricultural lands. This irrigation district is a major contributor to the economy of Yuma County--the largest agriculturally developed county in Arizona--and posts approximately three-quarters of a billion dollars in annual agricultural sales. Transfer of title from the Federal Government will affect neither the productivity nor the efficiency of the irrigation district. I believe that transfer would only enhance the District's productivity. Both sides stand to benefit from this title transfer. The District looks forward to a reduction in Federal Government involvement; would benefit from better land-management opportunities; and would have the opportunity to assure increased protection of the environmental values of the Gila River riparian habitat. The Federal Government benefits, too. A successful title transfer would advance the administration's stated goal of reduction in government as well as eliminate the responsibility for managing the patchwork of lands that make up the District. The Bureau of Reclamation would be relieved of the administrative and financial burden of facilities oversight currently required due to Federal ownership. In negotiations, the Bureau of Reclamation has raised several issues that need to be addressed in order to effect a successful transfer. These issues include environmental mitigation, administrative costs, identification and valuation of lands, and agricultural return flows. One of the benefits of my legislation is that it provides a Memorandum of Agreement, to be negotiated between the Bureau and the District, that will address all of these concerns in an open and mutually beneficial process. I am pleased thus far by the cooperation of all stakeholders. I look forward to continuing the process at the Water and Power subcommittee hearing on June 9, 1998. I thank Senator McCain for his cosponsorship of this bill, and I look forward to his support, as well as that of the rest of my colleagues, on this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I support S. 1723, the American Competitiveness Act. Business, professional associations, and various governmental entities have presented convincing evidence of the need to raise the current 65,000 annual cap on H1-B workers. It is also true that there is significant conflicting evidence, which is why I believe the requirement in the bill for a non-biased report on high-technology labor needs is one of the most important provisions of the bill. Over the past two years I have heard from numerous employers from around the state of Arizona, including such major employers as Intel Corporation, Motorola, the TRW, who have provided evidence and anecdotes about why more H1-B workers are needed. For example, TRW tells about a foreign student it hired from an American university because the foreign student was the only individual who could produce a formula to redesign a component of the ``air-bag'' to make it safer and better designed. If TRW had not been allowed to hire the foreign student, it believes it would still be searching for an engineer to perform the job. This year and last, the 65,000 annual ceiling on H1-B workers has been reached. That means that for the next four months, until the end of the fiscal year, employers who cannot find American workers to perform certain specialty jobs, including computer programming, engineering, and other high-technology positions, will not have that work performed until the 1999 fiscal year begins, this October 1. For anyone who has ever run a business and experienced worker shortages, they know that not being allowed to hire necessary personnel can be devastating. I support an increase in the cap for this year. I also support a short term increase, for five years, in the number of aliens granted H1-B visas. With the increasing number of high-technology jobs, including positions related to the Year 2000 problem, and, until this year, a decreasing number of students studying in high-tech-oriented majors, employers will be challenged in the near term to find enough qualified workers. Having said this, however, I reiterate that there are conflicting issues surrounding the H1-B foreign worker debate that must be examined and addressed at the end of the five-year authorization. When the full Judiciary Committee considered S. 1723, the Judiciary Committee accepted my provision to limit the authorization to five years and require that various interests on both sides get together and issue a non-biased report within two years of enactment of the bill about labor market needs over the next ten years for high-technology workers. This study and report, to be overseen by the National Science Foundation, will include representatives with varying interests for academia, business, and government, and, among other issues, will assess the future training and education needs of American students to ensure that their skills match the needs of the IT industry over the next 10 years. It will also provide an analysis of progress made since 1998 by educators, employers, and government entities to improve the teaching and educational level of American students in the fields of math, science, computer and engineering. The report, and the requirement that the authorization be limited to five years, is clearly necessary. My office has been inundated with information from government agencies, the high-technology industry, and professional associations that represent particular high-tech industries. But the information has been inconsistent. For example, information we received from the Commerce Department indicates that the United States is currently experiencing a significant high-technology worker shortage and over the next 10 years, the U.S. will generate more than 100,000 information-technology jobs annually. An interest group study, conducted by Virginia Tech, found that there is a current vacancy rate of 346,000 high-technology positions in the United States. The Labor Department projects that our economy will produce more than 130,000 information-technology jobs in each of the next ten years, for a total of more than 1.3 million positions. The Hudson Institute estimates that the unaddressed shortage of skilled workers throughout the U.S. will result in a five percent drop in the growth rate of GDP. On the other hand, information provided for the General Accounting Office about the Commerce Department's assessment of information- technology shortages indicates that the Commerce report contained serious methodological weaknesses. The GAO, however, also found that its assessment should ``not necessarily lead to a conclusion that there is no shortage. Instead, as the Commerce report states, additional information and data are needed to more accurately characterize the IT labor market now and in the future. The GAO report also provided Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates on projected growth for high-technology jobs and found that, compared to the expected 13 percent growth in other jobs by the year 2005, IT occupations are expected to grow 60 percent over the same period. Increasing wages of IT workers and the unemployment rate of IT workers also signal shortages in the IT field. But in these areas, there is also conflicting information. For example, reports conducted by consulting and interest groups found that salaries for IT workers rose higher than for other specialty occupations in 1996 and 1997. But, according to the GAO, the percentage changes for the IT industry over the period between 1983 and 1997 were comparable to, or lower, than other speciality occupations. Such statistics may support the high- technology sector's anecdotal evidence that demand, relative to other occupations in a period of relatively low unemployment, has grown substantially over the past couple of years. There are also anecdotal stories in leading newspapers about the difficulty American college graduates are experiencing trying to enter the high-technology job market. But, statistics about specific high- tech professions paint a different picture. For example, the unemployment rate among electrical engineers nationally is below one percent. Anecdotal evidence points toward one assessment but statistics seem to point toward high demand for these U.S. workers. So, the required repot will serve as an important tool in the reauthorization of the H1-B program, but regardless of the outcome of the report, it is very important for the private sector and for government, all the way up to the Executive Branch, to encourage young people to be fully prepared, first, for job markets where there is an abundance of jobs and, second, for the very jobs that will keep America strong and competitive on a global basis. To that end, I am supportive of the bill's provision to authorize $50 million in scholarships for low-income students pursuing degrees in math, engineering, and science. It is my hope that the provision, coupled with related provisions in the Senate-passed job-training consolidation bill and the National Science Foundation reauthorization, will help young people go into high tech fields. There are other aspects of this legislation that I want to highlight. As foreign workers continue to be admitted into the American workforce, and as the five-year reauthorization progresses, I will work with the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to scrutinize which workers really make up our population of H1-B workers. Let's make sure that the H1-B program only admits those workers who will perform a ``specialty occupation'' as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act, including the following; the individual possesses unique knowledge or skills; the individual can localize a product based on native knowledge of language or culture of the foreign market; the individual will contribute to a company's global presence; or, an employer finds an inadequate number of highly qualified American workers to fill the job. In addition, it is important to understand the dynamics by which H1-B employees come to stay in the United States permanently, instead of returning home after the six years they are authorized to work in this country under the visa. While it is true that in 1990, immigration reforms made it possible for H1-B workers to, with ``dual intent,'' enter the United States on an H1-B visa and then remain in the United States permanently, I believe it is important to know how many immigrants are entering the United States on an H1-B visa and then staying here permanently. Finally, it is very important that the Labor Department respond to questions posed in March by Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Spencer Abraham about abuses in the H1-B program. It is important to understand why the number of complaints about the H1-B process are so few. I support the provisions of the bill that increase penalties to $25,000 per violation and provide for a two-year debarment from the H1-B program for employers who willfully violate the law, but we need to know more about whether or not a substantial number of employers do or do not violate H1-B immigration law. Mr. President, I will support passage of S. 1723. Companies in the United States must not be impeded from hiring needed employees. I look forward to a comprehensive assessment of high-technology employer needs from the report included in the bill and to critically applying that assessment when we look at and reauthorize the H1-B program in five years. amendment no. 2418

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a section in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that I am particularly proud of, and that is the law enforcement exception in the bill. At the Judiciary Committee markup, Senator Grassley and I, along with the assistance of Chairman Hatch and Senator Ashcroft worked to strengthen the law enforcement exception in the bill. We received input on the language from the copyright community and the administration: the National Security Agency (NSA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The law enforcement exception ensures that the government continues to have access to current and future technologies to assist in their investigative, protective, or intelligence activities. I am concerned that the tools and resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities are preserved--and more importantly, not limited, by passage of S. 2037. Under that bill, a company who contracts with the government can continue to develop encryption/decryption devices under that contract, without having to worry about criminal penalties. Because much of our leading technologies come from the private sector, the government needs to have access to this vital resource for intelligence and law enforcement purposes. The law enforcement exception recognizes that oftentimes governmental agencies work with non-governmental entities--companies, in order to have access to and develop cutting edge technologies and devices. Such conduct should not be prohibited or impeded by this copyright legislation.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President: I rise today to speak about a section in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that I am particularly proud of, and that is the law enforcement exception in the bill. At the Judiciary Committee mark-up, Senator Grassley and I, along with the assistance of Chairman Hatch and Senator Ashcroft worked to strengthen the law enforcement exception in the bill. We received input on the language from the copyright community and the administration: the National Security Agency (NSA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The law enforcement exception ensures that the government continues to have access to current and future technologies to assist in their investigative, protective, or intelligence activities. I am concerned that the tools and resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities are preserved--and more importantly, not limited, by passage of S. 2037. Under this bill, a company who contracts with the government can continue to develop encryption/decryption devices under that contract, without having to worry about criminal penalties. Because much of our leading technologies come from the private sector, the government needs to have access to this vital resource for intelligence and law enforcement purposes. The law enforcement exception recognizes that oftentimes governmental agencies work with non-governmental entities--companies, in order to have access to and develop cutting edge technologies and devices. Such conduct should not be prohibited or impeded by this copyright legislation.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. President, the administration's position on defending the American people is essentially twofold: One, wait until there is a threat; and, two, we will then develop a defense. There are two things wrong with this approach: First, as the Indian nuclear testing has just demonstrated to us, we won't necessarily know when there is a threat. In fact, we always seem to underestimate the threat. Secondly, it always seems to take longer than we anticipate to develop complex systems, and this is particularly true with respect to missile defenses. So the legislation introduced by the Senator from Mississippi is a much better idea, to protect the American people, Mr. President. It simply says that it is our policy to deploy a national missile defense as soon as it is technologically possible. Now, what could be more straightforward and more protective for the American people? The American people demand no less. I would note that the argument of the Senator from North Dakota just a moment ago illustrates, I believe, the lack of ideas to oppose this simple legislation of the Senator from Mississippi. His primary argument was that we need to continue research because, after all, there are other threats, too, like the suitcase bomb. Of course, there are other threats. And our position has always been to prepare to defend against all of the threats but not to ignore one very big threat just because there are other threats as well. There have been other charges that the adoption of the American Missile Protection Act is somehow going to wreck arms agreements that the United States has entered into. First, there is the complaint about the ABM Treaty that we heard which is particularly puzzling since the words, ABM Treaty don't appear anywhere in this legislation. The bill doesn't require any violation of the ABM Treaty as a matter of fact. It doesn't specify the number of sites, where they would be, or what kind of interceptors or missiles we would have. So that argument is specious. Secondly, we have heard the argument that if the United States decides to deploy an NMD even against limited threats, the Russians will refuse to ratify START II or negotiate START III. How many times do we have to pay for START II? I count about eight different things that the Russians have said we have to do in order for them to ratify START II or fully implement START I or START II. And we could list those but I am going to put them in the Record. The point is the United States needs to take its defense into its own hands. We cannot simply rely upon a piece of paper with another country, particularly where in the case of, first, the Soviet Union, and now Russia, after that piece of paper is signed--and remember we are putting our safety in the hands of people across the sea who have signed that piece of paper with us--we find that they have changed their mind and tell us that they can't implement that piece of paper until we do other things. First of all, it was that we had to address concerns regarding NATO expansion and then the CFE Treaty had to be modified. Then they could not afford to dismantle their weapons, and on and on and on. The point here is we should not place our reliance upon pieces of paper signed with other countries but upon what we can do for ourselves to protect the American people. We heard the argument that the United States must refrain from exercising our rights under the ABM Treaty to deploy even a limited missile defense lest we upset the Russians, the same Russians who operate the world's only current ABM system. Should we take from this suggestion that the Russians have a right not only to defend themselves but to insist that we do not? And yet that is precisely what the opponents of this legislation are saying. Mr. President, the defense of America should not be subject to a Russian veto. Linking the deployment of national missile defenses to some hoped-for arms control agreement is to be expected from the Russians, but it is unconscionable to be offered by Representatives of this Congress. Arms control for the sake of arms control is not in the national interest, and the Constitution does not allow us to substitute pieces of paper for the real measures which must be taken to protect America. Then there is an argument that committing to deploy an ABM system will cause the sky to fall on offensive arms control agreements. Let me quote the Senator from Michigan on this issue: Nothing in this bill says that the national missile defense system that it commits us to deploy will be compliant with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. That is a treaty, a solemn agreement between us and Russia. If we threaten to break out of that treaty unilaterally, we threaten the security of this Nation because that treaty permits Russia to ratify the START II agreement and to negotiate a START III agreement, reducing the number of warheads that they have on their missiles and warheads that could also potentially proliferate around the world and threaten any number of places, including us. This statement is incorrect in several ways. First, the ABM Treaty is not a ``solemn agreement between us and Russia.'' The ABM Treaty was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union. That country no longer exists, and the administration spent four years in negotiations to see who would replace the Soviet Union as parties to that treaty. The President has certified that he will submit the results of those negotiations to the Senate for advice and consent. When and if the Senate agrees, then the ABM Treaty may become ``a solemn agreement between us and Russia,'' but not until then. Second, S. 1873 does not require ``break out'' from the ABM treaty. In fact, as I have already pointed out, it allows for deployment of exactly the system being developed under the administration's so-called 3+3 program. And there is nothing in any legislation that calls for that system to be treaty compliant. To the contrary, a non-compliant system is explicitly contemplated by the Defense Department. Here is what the Department of Defense said about its 3+3 program in the Secretary's 1998 report to Congress: ``a deployed NMD system either could be compliant with the ABM Treaty as written, or might require amendment of the treaty's provisions.'' So according to the Secretary of Defense, the system DoD is developing now may not comply with the ABM treaty. And so this arms control argument is nothing but a strawman, erected to be knocked down though it bears no resemblance to anything in this bill. Senator Levin cites as an authority for this odd proposition, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who, in a letter commenting on S. 1873, said the bill doesn't consider ``the impact a deployment would have on arms control agreements and nuclear arms reductions.'' Let's think about what General Shelton is saying here. The United States has a right to deploy a national missile defense system under the ABM Treaty, and S. 1873 merely calls for a commitment to exercise that right. But General Shelton is saying that our decision to exercise that right should be conditioned on the possible impact a deployment would have on future arms control agreements, meaning, presumably, Russian objections. So General Shelton is saying that our right to deploy a system to protect our citizens--even the severely constrained right embodied in the ABM treaty--should be subject to further negotiation with, and the approval of, the Russian Federation. I would find this an extraordinary argument under any circumstances, and extraordinarily disturbing coming from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It can't be comforting to the people of the United States to know that their Chairman believes their defense should be subject to the veto of the Russians. When one considers that the Russians have exercised their right to defend themselves with the only operational ABM system in the world, the position of the Chairman becomes downright bizarre. The complaints about arms control from opponents of the Cochran- Inouye bill are without merit. They spring from this administration's infatuation with paper agreements, no matter how disconnected from reality those agreements may be. We have a paper arms control agreement called START I, which the Russians are routinely violating. We have START II, which was negotiated, then renegotiated to give the Russians a better deal, and still it lies before the Duma unratified. Yet opponents of this bill would have the United States forego the defense of its people against a threat wholly unrelated to any of these agreements, simply because they fear the Russians will insist upon it. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1873, the American Missile Protection Act. This is a simple bill which merely states that due to the increasing ballistic missile threat we face, ``It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).'' Outside of the title and findings of the legislation, this is the only sentence in the bill. As a matter of fact, S. 1873 is noteworthy for the things it does not say. The bill does not say what kind of system architecture the missile defense system should have. It does not say where such a system should be located, or more generally, whether it should be based on land, at sea, or in space. It does not specify a date by which such a system should be deployed, or when we believe specific missile threats to the United States will materialize. And the bill is silent on arms control issues. It does not address whether continued adherence to the ABM Treaty is in the best interests of the United States or whether the treaty should be modified. Nor does the bill discuss the merits of any future arms control agreements. All of these issues will have to be debated another day. I am disappointed, however, that we are still debating whether the United States should deploy a national missile defense system at some point in the future. The Threat The ballistic missile threat facing the U.S. is real and growing. Russia and China already have ballistic missiles capable of reaching our shores and several other nations, including North Korea and Iran are developing missiles with increasing ranges. China In November 1997, the Defense Department published a report titled, Proliferation: Threat and Response in which it said China already has over 100 nuclear warheads deployed operationally on ballistic missiles. According to this report, Beijing has ``embarked on a ballistic missile modernization program,'' and ``while adding more missiles and launchers to its inventory, [is] concentrating on replacing liquid-propellant missiles with mobile solid-propellant missiles, reflecting concerns for survivability, maintenance, and reliability.'' Details about this modernization program have been published in the press. The Washington Times reported on May 23, 1997, that a new Chinese road-mobile ICBM, called the Dong Feng-31, is in the late stages of development and may be deployed around the year 2000. This missile's 8,000 kilometer range is sufficient to reach the entire U.S. West Coast and several Rocky Mountain states and it will reportedly utilize re-entry vehicle decoys, complicating missile defense. China is also developing the JL-2 SLBM with a 7,300 kilometer range, according to Defense Week. That publication reported last April that the JL-2 is likely to be deployed by the year 2007 and will allow China to target the U.S. from operating areas near the Chinese coast. And finally, on May 1st, the Washington Times disclosed that a Top Secret CIA report indicated 13 of China's 18 nuclear-tipped CSS-4 ICBM's are targeted at American cities. These missiles are reportedly being improved as well, with the addition of upgraded guidance systems. In addition to its modernization efforts, I am also concerned that Beijing has shown a willingness to use ballistic missiles to intimidate its neighbors. For example, during Taiwan's national legislative elections in 1995, China fired six M-9 ballistic missiles to an area about 160 kilometers north of the island. Less than a year later, on the eve of Taiwan's first democratic presidential election, China again launched M-9 missiles to areas within 50 kilometers north and south of the island, establishing a virtual blockade of Taiwan's two primary ports. Russia Russia retains over 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which still pose the greatest threat to our nation. While we do not believe Russia has hostile intentions, we must be cautious because its evolution is incomplete. For example, Russia is continuing to modernize its strategic nuclear forces. According to the Washington Times, Russian R&D spending on strategic weapons has soared nearly six-fold over the past three years and Moscow is developing an upgraded version of the SS-25 ICBM, as well as a new strategic nuclear submarine armed with a new nuclear-tipped SLBM. At the same time Russia is spending precious resources on its modernization effort, its nuclear command and control complex continues to deteriorate. Although unlikely, the threat of an unauthorized or accidental launch of a Russian ICBM has increased in recent years as Russia's armed forces have undergone difficult changes. For example, last March the Wall Street Journal reported that, according to Russian colonel who spent much of his 33 year career in the Strategic Rocket Forces, Russian nuclear command and control equipment began breaking down 10 years ago and on several occasions parts of system spontaneously went into ``combat mode.'' Even more troubling were comments made by Russian Defense Minister Rodionov last February, who in a departure from previous assurances that Moscow's nuclear forces were under tight control stated, ``Today, no one can guarantee the reliability of our systems of control . . . Russia might soon reach the threshold beyond which its rockets and nuclear systems cannot be controlled.'' Rogue Nations Although Russia and China are the only countries that currently possess missiles capable of reaching the United States, several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are aggressively developing long- range ballistic missiles. North Korea According to the Defense Department's November report, since its missile program began in the early 1980's, ``North Korea has pursued an aggressive program which has steadily progressed from producing and exporting Scud short range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) to work on development of medium and long range missiles.'' North Korea has deployed several hundred Scud B and C missiles with sufficient range to target all of South Korea, and has completed development of the 1,000 kilometer range No Dong MRBM, which can reach targets in nearly all of Japan, according to the report. In addition, recent press reports indicate North Korea has begun deploying the No Dong missile. More ominously, North Korea is developing the Taepo Dong 1 missile with an estimated range of 2,000 kilometers which will be capable of striking U.S. military bases in Guam and the Taepo Dong 2 missile, with an estimated range of 4,000 to 6,000 kilometers that could reach Alaska and Hawaii. On April 27th, the Washington Post reported that development of the Taepo Dong 2 missile could be completed ``within the next several years.'' Iran Iran has an ambitious missile program and is currently capable of producing both the 300 kilometer range Scud B and the 500 kilometer range Scud C missiles. This program is becoming increasingly advanced and less vulnerable to supply disruptions. As the Defense Department said in its November 1997 report, ``Iran has made significant progress in the last few years toward its goal of becoming self-sufficient in ballistic missile production.'' Tehran has made particularly rapid progress over the past year, however, due to the infusion of Russian hardware and know-how which has significantly accelerated the pace of the Iranian program. This Russian assistance has been well documented in the press. According to these reports, numerous institutes and companies that once were an integral part of the state-owned military complex of the former Soviet Union have provided a variety of equipment and material that can be used to design and manufacture ballistic missiles. They are also helping Iran develop two new ballistic missiles, the Shahab-3 and Shahab-4. The Shahab-3 is reportedly based on North Korea's No Dong ballistic missile and will have a range of 1,300 kilometers with a 700 kilogram payload, sufficient to target Israel and U.S. forces in the region. Seven months ago, on September 18, 1997, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk testified to the Senate that Iran could complete development of the Shahab-3 in as little as 12 to 18 months. The Shahab-4 is reportedly based on the Russian SS-4 medium-range ballistic missile and will have a range of 2,000 kilometers with a payload over 1,000 kilograms. When completed, the Shahab-4's longer range will enable Tehran to reach targets as far away as Central Europe. According to the Washington Times, an Israeli intelligence report indicates the Shahab-4 could be completed in as little as three years. Israeli intelligence sources reportedly also told Defense News that the long-term goals of Iran's missile program are to develop missiles with ranges of 4,500 and 10,000 kilometers. The latter missile could reach the East Coast of the United States. Other Nations In addition to North Korea and Iran, roughly two dozen other countries, including Iraq and Libya either possess or are developing ballistic missiles. The clear trend in these missile programs is toward systems with greater ranges, and as Iran has demonstrated, foreign assistance can greatly reduce the time needed to develop a new missile. Responding to the missile threat The time has come for the United States to defend itself from the increasing missile threat that I have just described. The Cochran bill is the first step on this path. Some opponents of the bill have pointed to the Administration's so- called ``3+3'' program as a better way to deal with the missile threat. I have grave concerns about the basic premise of the ``3+3'' program, which essentially states that the United States should continue to experiment with a variety of missile defense technologies indefinitely, and then, at some time after the year 2000, deploy an NMD system within three years. It is significant that the ``3+3'' program is the only Major Defense Acquisition Program that takes this wait-and-see approach and assumes a deployment can occur within three years of a decision to deploy. The development of a complex weapons system, such as a new fighter aircraft or an NMD system can be technically challenging, which is why we structure development programs with clear goals and milestones. We do not continue to tinker indefinitely with the technology needed for the F-22, which will be the next-generation fighter aircraft for the Air Force, or the technology for the next version of the M-1 Abrams tank until some future date awaiting a decision to deploy. Why should we adopt this approach for national missile defense? Studies on the ``3+3'' program have faulted the Administration's plan and its execution. For example, a recent study chaired by retired Air Force General Larry Welch criticized the ``3+3'' program stating that a successful NMD program should have ``a clear set of requirements, consistent resource support (which includes an adequate number of test assets), well-defined milestones, and a rigorous test plan. The study group believes that the current NMD program is not characterized by these features and is on a high-risk vector.'' Last December, the GAO published a study that also was critical of the ``3+3'' program due to its high risk and its acquisition schedule, which the study said was half as long as that for America's Safeguard national missile defense system that was developed between 1963 and 1975 and deployed at Grand Forks, North Dakota. The GAO stated that the acquisition schedule for the ``3+3'' program was ``shorter than the average time projected to acquire and field 59 other major weapon systems that we examined" and went on to note, ``these systems are projected to take an average of just under 10 years from the beginning of their development until they reach an initial operating capability date.'' Mr. President, the general approach underlying the ``3+3'' program is flawed and due to the delays the program has already encountered I do not think we should stake our future on the premise that the system can be fielded within three years after a decision to deploy. As the GAO said in its study, ``Since the 3+3 program was approved, BMDO [the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] has experienced a 7-month delay in establishing the joint program office to manage the acquisition and a 6-month delay in awarding concept definition contracts leading to the selection of a prime contractor. Also, a sensor flight-test failure resulted in a 6-month testing delay.'' As my colleagues know all too well, unfortunately, it is not uncommon for U.S. weapons development programs to experience delays. For example, despite the best efforts of the Congress and the Administration to quickly field the THAAD theater missile defense system, that program is currently projected to reach its first unit equipped milestone 13 years after development began. Experience tells us that we cannot keep national missile defense technology in a circling pattern and expect to snap our fingers and successfully move to deployment in a very short period of time. Nothing in our history suggests this is a sensible approach. Mr. President, we need to get on with the task of constructing an effective missile defense system to protect the American people. Like other Senators, I have strong views on the disadvantages of the ABM Treaty and other related missile defense issues, but unfortunately those debates will have to wait for another day. The United States government has a fundamental obligation to provide for our citizens defense. The bill offered by Senator Cochran will help ensure that we fulfill this obligation, by committing us to deploying a defense against the growing ballistic missile threat we face. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Reconciliation Act of 1996, it ended public welfare for most aliens who had not worked to earn their benefits. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act reversed some of the provisions of that bill by reinstating eligibility for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program for disabled and elderly immigrants who were in the country before August 22, 1996, the day the omnibus welfare reform package passed into law. But the act also reinstated SSI for immigrants who were in the country as of August 22, 1996 and become disabled in the future. The SSI program is fraught with fraud. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Social Security Administration sends out $27 billion in SSI checks annually. Approximately $4 billion in checks are sent out erroneously. Immigrants, who make up just 6 percent of the population, currently receive over half the cash benefits from the SSI program. The agriculture research bill we are debating today restores food stamp eligibility for the elderly and the disabled, and for children, as long as they were in the United States before August 22, 1996. But, the agriculture research bill also includes the restoration of food stamp benefits for all immigrants who were in the country as of August 22, 1996, but who become disabled in the future. The Congress is going to spend approximately $800 million to restore all of these benefits. The food stamp program, like the SSI program, does not require that an individual have contributed to the Social Security base. And, the food stamp program is also susceptible to fraud and abuse--in a just released GAO report, it is estimated that recipients were overpaid an estimated $1.5 billion, or 7 percent of the approximately $22 billion food stamps program. And, that is only the fraud that is quantifiable by the government. The GAO believes there are other forms of fraud in the food stamp program that are too difficult to quantify. As a result of the 1997 Budget and this bill, those individuals who were in the country and disabled on August 22, 1996 will continue to be eligible for SSI and for food stamps. But, the Congress has to draw the line somewhere. The sponsors of currently healthy immigrants who entered the country before August 22, 1996 should be responsible for those immigrants' care should they fall on hard times. That has always been the law. In fact, since the early part of the century any immigrant who becomes a public charge can actually be removed from the United States. For those individuals who do become disabled and for whom there is no sponsor support, the Immigration and Naturalization Service already has the authority to waive the normal requirements of becoming a citizen. By becoming a citizen, such individuals would automatically be eligible for SSI and for food stamps should they qualify. Mr. President, now is not the time to reverse our course on welfare reform, as such reform applies both to our U.S. citizens and to our immigrants. America is a land of immigrants, yes. But, we must not perpetuate dependence on public benefits. Our nation must be one of opportunity for our immigrants, not one that skirts the law by providing a loophole for some immigrants to become dependent on public assistance in the future. The Senate should remove the provisions of the conference report that continue food stamp benefits for immigrants in the future.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise in support of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act. This is a much stronger and much more effective bill because of the time that the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Bill Roth, has taken to thoroughly investigate problems at the agency and identify meaningful solutions. I want to commend him for his work. The politically easy thing to do would have been to rush the original bill to a vote, as many on the other side tried to do on numerous occasions. But by taking the time to do the job right, we have a much better bill. For one thing, we now have far stronger provisions to protect innocent spouses. The legislation would ensure that innocent spouses are responsible only for their own tax liability. Madam President, it was two and a half months ago that I came before the Senate to discuss the plight of a constituent of mine, a woman who divorced in late 1995. She paid her taxes in full and on time during the last two years of her marriage, but her husband apparently did not. The IRS ultimately came after her for the taxes that her former spouse did not pay. It did not aggressively pursue the tax bill with him. After two weeks after hearing from my constituent, I sent Chairman Roth a letter identifying ways of improving the IRS reform bill, and on that short list was a recommendation to make innocent-spouse relief easier to obtain, and to make it available retroactively, or at least to all cases pending on the date of enactment of the bill. So obviously, I am delighted that the Finance Committee has focused on the issue of innocent-spouse protection and has included provisions that better protect my constituent and women across the country in similar situations. The Finance Committee has improved upon the bill in other ways, too. For example, it would suspend interest charges and penalties after one year if the IRS fails to notify a taxpayer of a deficiency. Without that provision, taxpayers can find that penalties and interest started accruing years before they were ever made aware that there was a problem with their tax returns. The bill would make the Taxpayer Advocate's office independent of the agency to ensure that it represents the taxpayers' interest, not just the agency's interest. It would give the IRS Commissioner the statutory authority he needs to restructure the agency. It would hold IRS employees accountable for their actions by requiring the agency to terminate employees who commit perjury, falsify documents, or violate the rules to retaliate against a taxpayer. It would make the offers-in- compromise program more fair to taxpayers. And it would ensure due process in collections activities. These are important things--changes worth taking the time to make. We have got to try to get things right. Too many past attempts to rein in the IRS have come up short, and once Congress's attention turns to other things, the agency has gone back to business as usual. This is a good bill. It deserves an ``aye'' vote. But let us be under no illusion that even a good reform bill will solve the myriad problems that exist. Our nation's Tax Code, as currently written, amounts to thousands of pages of confusing, seemingly contradictory tax-law provisions. We need to reform the IRS, but unless that reform is followed up with a more fundamental overhaul of the Internal Revenue Code, problems with collections and enforcement are likely to persist. If the Tax Code cannot be deciphered, it does not matter what kind of personnel or process changes we make at the agency. Complexity invites different interpretations of the tax laws from different people, and that is where most of the problems at the IRS arise. Replacing the existing code with a simpler, fairer, flatter tax would facilitate compliance by taxpayers, offer fewer occasions for intrusive IRS investigations, and eliminate the need for special interests to lobby for complicated tax loopholes. There are a variety of approaches to fundamental reform that are pending before Congress: a flat-rate income tax; a national sales tax, the Kemp Commission's simpler single-rate tax. Each has its passionate advocates in Congress and around the country, and any one of these options would be preferable to the existing income-tax system. So why, many people will ask, have we not been able to settle on one of them and act on fundamental tax reform? The answer is that, while there is overwhelming public consensus in favor of an overhaul of the Tax Code, a public consensus has yet to emerge in favor of a sales tax over a flat tax or some alternative. And given President Clinton's lack of support for fundamental tax reform, it is likely to take a public consensus, the likes of which we have not seen in recent years, to drive such a tax-overhaul plan through Congress, past the President, and into law. Steve Forbes made tax reform the central theme of his campaign for the presidency two years ago. He carried Arizona in the Republican presidential primary, in large part because his tax plan resonated among the people in my state. Yet he failed to win the nomination, and neither Bill Clinton nor Bob Dole pursued the issue with as much passion or conviction. And it will take a national campaign to build the kind of consensus that will be needed to move forward with fundamental tax reform, which is probably the most momentous undertaking of the century. The IRS reform bill, Finance Committee hearings about taxpayer abuse by the IRS, the Kemp Commission's recommendations in favor of fundamental tax reform, new proposals to sunset the IRS Code, and the debate that sponsors of the flat tax and sales tax have taken on the road in recent months, will all help to move the discussion forward. In conclusion, we can pass an IRS reform bill to try to rein in the IRS and make sure that it treats taxpayers fairly, reasonably, and respectfully. But let us not fool ourselves. The IRS cannot be faulted for a Tax Code that is too complex and filled with contradictory provisions. Until the Tax Code is simplified, problems in one form or another are likely to persist. We must use this opportunity to begin the debate about fundamental tax reform.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 351, S. 1900.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Senator D'Amato has a substitute amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I further ask that following morning business at noon, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2676, the IRS reform bill, for debate only.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 11 a.m. on Monday, May 4. I further ask that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Hutchinson for 30 minutes; And Senator Dorgan for 30 minutes.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Dorgan.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. For the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Monday, it is the leader's intention to begin consideration of the IRS reform bill. It is hoped that Members will come to the floor, offer their opening statements and debate this important piece of legislation. As a reminder, any votes ordered with respect to the IRS reform bill will be postponed to occur following the vote on the job training partnership bill ordered for 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agree to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 352, Senate Resolution 175.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have a series of unanimous consent requests that I would like to make, one of which is that we will conclude our business today after the Senator from North Dakota has had an opportunity to make his remarks.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to take this personal privilege of explaining why I was not able to vote last night on an extraordinarily important issue before the Senate; namely, the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The vote, fortunately, was 80 to 19, meaning that the United States has gone on record as supporting the inclusion of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland as members of this important alliance. When the debate started, I provided remarks which expressed my strong sentiments in support of that expansion. Throughout the debate, as amendments were offered, I spoke to several of them, attempting to defeat amendments that I thought would be detrimental to the expansion of NATO and to our mission in NATO. Fortunately, one of the first amendments adopted was an amendment which I offered, which helped us to present a strategic vision in the discussions that would be ongoing with respect to the development of a new strategic vision for NATO that reflects the beliefs of the U.S. Senate and reflects our belief that the original purposes of NATO and the original strategic vision should play a large role in animating our assistance, with our fellow NATO members, in devising a new strategic mission. I say all of that as a predicate to state in the most emphatic terms that had I been able to be here, I would have voted ``aye'' to support the expansion of NATO. Ironically, my absence last night was due to the fact that I was supposed to be on my way to a conference in Europe, which is the New Atlantic Initiative Conference to discuss and support NATO and NATO expansion. The New Atlantic Initiative is a relatively new organization, founded among, other things, to promote the continued development of, and enhancement of, the strong relationship between the United States and our NATO allies. Unfortunately, because a lot of my colleagues had a lot to say and had amendments to offer, many of which were ultimately withdrawn, the leader and the distinguished minority leader were not able to close the debate in time for me to make that vote. Unfortunately, also, I delayed my departure until the very last aircraft to Europe. That aircraft was taken out of service. That is why, about midnight last night, I learned not only that I would not be able to go to that NATO conference but that I had also missed the vote on NATO expansion. I regret that very much, because I would have liked to have been here to cast my vote in support of that. I note that a letter from the distinguished majority leader, which I was to deliver to the representatives of the Turkish Government, has been delivered, and, therefore, the Senate is also represented at that conference as it is going on here today. I certainly appreciate the majority leader's support for that.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to conclude this discussion of the Senate Finance Committee's work in exposing problems with the IRS by commending the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Roth, for holding the series of hearings to expose problems in the Internal Revenue Service's dealings with taxpayers. I also want to thank the taxpayers and IRS employees who had the courage to come forward and tell their stories publicly. Although we all knew that there were serious problems with the way the IRS does business, it is safe to say that all of us were truly shocked at what we learned from the hearings. As Senator Roth put it, we found that the IRS far too often targets vulnerable taxpayers, treats them with hostility and arrogance, uses unethical and even illegal tactics to collect money that sometimes is not even owed, and uses quotas to evaluate employees. Its effort, obviously, is to try to bring in more money. But I think all of us would agree that it is not an acceptable behavior, and, therefore, clearly that kind of behavior will be dealt with in the legislation which we will be preparing. I think it is also important to make the point that most IRS employees, like most other Government employees, are not only law abiding and very hard working but are very professional in what they do. They have, especially at the IRS, the very difficult and even thankless task of administering the code that, frankly, the Congress and the President made extremely complex and difficult to administer. It is filled with contradictory provisions. It is often open to differing interpretations. Frankly, we have given the IRS tremendous power in administering the code, but it is power that can bankrupt families, can put people out of their homes, and, as we heard, even ruin some lives. Any abuse of that power is intolerable. Let me recount some of the things that have been uncovered as a result of these hearings. We heard that a taxpayer was hounded by the IRS for overpaying his taxes. The IRS put one constituent through the wringer of audits annually for 20 years and never found anything wrong. Another person received a tax refund in error from the IRS. Knowing that it was an error, the constituent never cashed the check, yet when the IRS discovered its own error later, it demanded the refund back with interest. One family that had a lien placed on its house worked out a payment plan with one IRS agent, only to have another IRS agent institute foreclosure proceedings. What is most galling to taxpayers is not that they have to pay taxes, but that there is virtually no recourse when the IRS makes an error. The cost of setting things right--hiring attorneys and CPAs--can be so high that people agree to pay taxes and penalties that they do not really owe. Another thing we found was the abuse that innocent spouses can suffer at the hands of the IRS and current law. By resisting calls from the other side to rush the IRS reform bill to vote, we have been able to craft far stronger provisions to protect innocent spouses. The legislation that will come before the Senate next week would ensure that innocent spouses are responsible only for their own tax liability. It was two and a half months ago that I came before the Senate to discuss the plight of a constituent of mine, a woman who divorced in late 1995. She paid her taxes in full and on time during the last two years of her marriage, but her husband apparently did not. The IRS ultimately came after her for the taxes that her former spouse did not pay. It did not aggressively pursue the tax bill with him. About two weeks after hearing from my constituent, I sent Chairman Roth a letter identifying ways of improving the IRS reform bill, and on that short list was a recommendation to make innocent-spouse relief easier to obtain, and to make it available retroactively, or at least to all cases pending on the date of enactment of the bill. So obviously, I am delighted that the Finance Committee has focused on the issue of innocent-spouse protection and has included provisions that better protect my constituent and women across the country in similar situations. The IRS reform bill is a good bill, and it deserves an ``aye'' vote. But let us be under no illusion that even a good reform bill will solve the myriad problems that exist. Our nation's Tax Code, as currently written, amounts to thousands of pages of confusing, seemingly contradictory tax-law provisions. We need to reform the IRS, but unless that reform is followed up with a more fundamental overhaul of the Internal Revenue Code, problems with collections and enforcement are likely to persist. If the Tax Code cannot be deciphered, it does not matter what kind of personnel or process changes we make at the agency. Complexity invites different interpretations of the tax laws from different people, and that is where most of the problems at the IRS arise. Replacing the existing code with a simpler, fairer, flatter tax would facilitate compliance by taxpayers, offer fewer occasions for intrusive IRS investigations, and eliminate the need for special interests to lobby for complicated tax loopholes. The IRS reform bill, Finance Committee hearings about taxpayer abuse by the IRS, the Kemp Commission's recommendations in favor of fundamental tax reform, new proposals to sunset the IRS Code, and the debate that sponsors of the flat tax and sales tax have taken on the road in recent months, will all help to move the tax-reform discussion forward. In conclusion, we can pass an IRS reform bill to try to rein in the IRS and make sure that it treats taxpayers fairly, reasonably, and respectfully. But let us not fool ourselves. The IRS cannot be faulted for a Tax Code that is too complex and filled with contradictory provisions. Until the Tax Code is simplified, problems in one form or another are likely to persist. We must use this opportunity to begin the debate about fundamental tax reform.

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I will not object.