Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. To respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I am not going to attribute motives to anyone, but it did cast doubt on the claims of the chairman of the committee. Yet a couple of days later, both the ranking minority leader and Senator Lieberman made the point they reviewed the FBI information and they agreed that Chairman Thompson's allegations were entirely supported.

Mr. KYL. Again, to conclude then, and to answer the Senator from Pennsylvania, I cannot ascribe a motive to anyone, but it seems mighty coincidental that at a very critical moment in the committee's deliberations and public hearings great doubt would be cast upon the chairman by the Justice Department of the United States, which is supposed to be conducting an independent, objective----

Mr. KYL. And apolitical investigation. And that I say is the second reason why we believe at this time events warrant the Attorney General to request the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate these matters. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. KYL. The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct, and as a direct result of that, the Democratic members of the committee denied immunity to the witnesses. Only one of the Democrats on the committee supported immunity for two of the witnesses, but none of the witnesses, the remaining witnesses, was granted immunity because of the solid vote of the Democratic members of the committee.

Mr. KYL. The minority counsel apparently made contact with the Justice Department.

Mr. KYL. The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct.

Mr. KYL. I will be happy to.

Mr. KYL. The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. And there is an additional factor that makes this even more troublesome, and that is that it was the committee's minority counsel, not in conjunction with majority counsel, which is the normal way----

Mr. KYL. Well, Mr. President, if I can say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, there is an old Latin phrase that is used in law, ``post hoc, ergo propter hoc,'' meaning ``after this, therefore because of this.'' It seems fairly obvious that if, on June 11, the Justice Department has no objection to granting of immunity, and then there is a big headline in the newspaper on the following morning, and immediately after that the minority leader announces that all of the Democrats will oppose immunity--now, there obviously had to be some kind of a meeting at which this was discussed or he could not have confidently spoken of how the minority members would react--and then a minority counsel talks to the Justice Department and announces that their position has been changed, the only conclusion that one, I think, can legitimately draw from this is that the intervening events caused the change of policy at the Justice Department. If that is true--and, of course, none of us know whether it is true--but if that is true, that clearly injects politics into this investigation in a way which makes it crystal clear that the Attorney General does not have the credibility to continue the investigation of this matter and must appoint an independent counsel. The law requires in a conflict of interest that that be done. What I am saying here this morning is that this chain of events clearly suggests that result. There is no other explanation that has been proffered. To the Senator from Pennsylvania, I say your questions are right on the mark in trying to get to the bottom of this entire matter. Mr. President, I know time is short. Might I ask how much of the remaining time I have?

Mr. KYL. Fine. Let me then continue with another aspect of this that is important. Again, just to summarize this, it is not at all uncommon in law enforcement in order to be able to make the case against the people who are masterminding a crime, for example, to get the little fish to talk. And the way you do that is to say, ``We will not prosecute you if you will tell us under oath everything you know and that information is useful in our ability to make a case against the bigger fish.'' That is the way it works in law enforcement. With respect to these Buddhist nuns and monks who have taken vows of poverty, it is clear that nobody wants to prosecute them. They were used. They were abused in this process. I don't think anybody thinks they were criminals or that they had criminal intent. But what is alleged to have occurred is that somebody brought a lot of money in and gave it to them and said, ``Now, tomorrow, when the Vice President is here, we want you to write a check in this same amount to the Vice President or to his campaign.'' That is called laundering money. The way you make the case against the people who were behind that is to get the people who were the conduits to talk. That is why the Governmental Affairs Committee wants to grant immunity to these people, to bring them forward so that the American people can see what has happened here, and the law enforcement people can get on with their job about getting these prosecutions completed. So far we hear nothing from the Justice Department. Mr. President, none of us want to jeopardize prosecutions, and when the Attorney General came before the Judiciary Committee, I accepted her explanation that, in effect, she was saying, ``Trust me, we have professional investigators pursuing criminal prosecutions and we will do that to the appropriate end.'' I can do nothing but trust the Attorney General when she makes that kind of statement, and none of us want to jeopardize prosecutions. But what I am saying this morning is that the chain of events now appears to be raising questions that are so serious that unless they are adequately publicly answered by the Attorney General, her credibility to continue this investigation on her own without the appointment of a special counsel is called into such serious question that I believe that the Senate of the United States could not adequately continue its public investigation and the American people would rightly question whether or not the administrative branch of Government, the embodiment of the Attorney General and the Justice Department, is not improperly involved in the investigation and hearings of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the U.S. Senate. I think that conclusion is inevitable. It would be a shame for that conclusion to be reached, and, as a result, Mr. President, to clear it all up, to get to the bottom of everything and to avoid the conclusion that the Justice Department is improperly involving politics in this matter, once again, we call upon the Attorney General of the United States to call for the appointment of an independent counsel in these fundraising matters.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the confidence of the American people in the American political system, in our Government here in Washington has been eroding in recent months, a subject that numerous pollsters and pundits have been writing about. One of the reasons that I believe this exists is that they believe people in high places can get away with things and they are, in effect, above the law, unlike the average American citizen, and that neither the Congress nor the administration has the ability, under that circumstance, to adequately track down perpetrators of crimes and pursue them to appropriate conclusion. One of the aspects of this that is most troubling to me right now has to do with the Justice Department's purported investigation of people and events surrounding various contributions, allegedly illegal contributions, to the Democratic National Committee, to the Presidential and Vice Presidential campaigns. Attorney General Reno has, after numerous requests, steadfastly refused to appoint an independent counsel to look into these matters, and I had literally hundreds of requests from constituents to make the point to Attorney General Reno that they think this is wrong, or questions asked by constituents as to how this could be when there is such an obvious conflict of interest, at least to the average American citizen. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I joined in an effort with other members of the committee to follow a statutory procedure of writing to the Attorney General, asking her to either appoint an independent counsel or explain to us the reasons why she could not do so. She refused to make the appointment and gave her reasons. At the time, I thought they were relatively unconvincing. But since that time, irrespective of whether it has been appropriate up to now, Mr. President, a couple of events have occurred that I think has made it crystal clear that the time has come for the Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel, because the integrity of her office is literally in question as a result of actions taken in connection with the Congress' investigation of these same matters. In June, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee announced its intention to grant immunity to 18 witnesses. They are very low-level witnesses against whom no prosecution is believed ever to be pursued or will be pursued. They were the straw donors who contributed money to the Democratic National Committee and were reimbursed by others, including one Charlie Trie, who apparently has fled the country and is currently hiding in China. Charlie Trie is a very close friend and fundraiser for President Clinton, who appointed Trie to membership on a governmental commission on U.S. Pacific trade and investment policy. Fifteen of these eighteen witnesses that the Governmental Affairs Committee wanted to grant immunity to were Buddhist clerics who have taken vows of poverty and yet contributed funds to the Democratic National Committee at fundraisers in substantial amounts. One was a Buddhist fundraiser in Los Angeles attended by Vice President Gore, who, of course, is a covered person under the independent counsel law; in other words, one of the people with whom there may be a conflict of interest as a result of which the Attorney General is supposed to appoint an independent counsel. Since June, the committee has announced its intention to immunize two additional witnesses in connection with these Buddhist fundraisers. Most of the 17 Buddhist witnesses have had immunity requests pending with the Justice Department since March of this year, and yet the Justice Department has not been able to visit with these people--most of them--or to take proffers of evidence from them or declare them for immunity for the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. The Justice Department's policy on this is clear. Their policy is not to prosecute low-level people such as this, low-level straw donors or conduits who merely launder campaign contributions at the requests of others. So the Justice Department should have had no problem in quickly clearing immunity for these witnesses, the 18 original witnesses and the 2 additional ones. On Wednesday, June 11, the day before the markup at which the committee was to vote on this immunity request, both the minority and the majority counsel on the committee spoke with Justice Department officials who were conducting this probe, and these officials expressed no objection to granting immunity for 17 of the 18 witnesses. But the next morning, June 12, the New York Times had a front-page story declaring that Vice President Gore had knowledge about this temple fundraiser. Just a little bit later that morning, at about 10:30, the Senate minority leader held a press briefing in which he said all of the minority members on the committee would oppose the granting of immunity during the markup later in the day. Of course, since it takes two- thirds of the committee to grant immunity, without some Democratic support, at least two Democrats on the committee, the Republican majority would never be able to get immunity for a witness. Shortly after the minority leader made his statement, the committee minority counsel informed the majority counsel that he, the minority counsel, had spoken with the Justice Department and it now objected to immunizing 15 Buddhist clerics. You had a direct connection here between the minority counsel on the committee and the Justice Department as a result of which the Justice Department flip-flopped.

Mr. KYL. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. KYL. The Senator from Pennsylvania is entirely correct, Mr. President. That is the exact chain of events, according to the committee's majority counsel, whose word has never been questioned on this. It was only after the front-page story.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to begin by asking unanimous consent that a staff member of mine, an intern, Kristine Kirchner, be granted the privilege of the floor during my presentation.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, yesterday I voted against H.R. 2158, the bill providing fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and various independent agencies. Funding provided by that measure totaled nearly $9 billion more than the comparable amount provided last year--about a 10-percent increase. It would be one thing if the increase were devoted to improved services for our Nation's veterans. After all, they put their lives on the line in defense of our country and all of the rights and liberties we enjoy. We owe them a debt of gratitude--and the obligation to fulfill the promises our Nation made to them when they were called to serve. Yet the spending increase in this bill is not targeted to veterans. The VA sees only a 0.5 percent increase in its budget. Medical care is increased only 1 percent. But presumably, these increases were sufficient to fulfill our obligations to veterans, exceeding President Clinton's request by nearly $93 million. I support them, and I stand ready to do more if that is necessary. Mr. President, compare the virtual spending freeze that our Nation's veteran population is able to bear with what happens to HUD's budget. Last year, HUD received a total of $16.3 billion. H.R. 2158 proposes to take that figure to $25.4 billion--a $9 billion increase. An increase of nearly 56 percent. That is a huge increase, even by Washington standards. Now I know that part of the reason for the added funding is the need to renew expiring section 8 housing contracts. But I believe we have a responsibility to try to offset the extra spending with reductions in lower priority HUD programs, rather than just add to the total. I see little evidence of attempting to prioritize HUD and other programs in this bill. It seems to me that the opportunity to find offsets was certainly there. The AmeriCorps Program, for example, was funded at $405 million. Remember, this is a program that pays volunteers to work. In most parts of the country, paying someone to work constitutes employment. Volunteers provide their time and energy out of their own good will. But here we have a government program--a Clinton administration priority--that actually pays volunteers to work. AmeriCorps committed last year to try to reduce its cost per participant to $17,000 this year and to $15,000 in 1999. Yet that is how much a lot of people around the country earn from their jobs. This is an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds, and we would do well to eliminate it. Yet I know that President Clinton would probably veto the bill--veterans funding and all--just to preserve it. So there seems to be little incentive to do the right thing and trim expenditures. The Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] Program is another case in point. The bill provides $1.4 billion for the program, with funding earmarked for a variety of projects, including library expansion in West Virginia, the Paramount Theater in Vermont, the Bushnell Theater in Connecticut, and economic development in downtown Ogden, Utah, to name just a few. If we had to set priorities, just like any family back home, we would probably conclude that section 8 renewals might be a little more important than some of these CDBG grants. But when the sky is the limit, we do not have to prioritize. We simply add more spending on top of everything else. And that is how we get a deficit problem. Mr. President, we need a new way of conducting business. We need to get back to a politics of principle, and of being honest with the American people about whether we are serious about seeking more responsible use of hard-earned tax dollars and reducing the deficit. This bill represents the old way of doing things, and exemplifies the politics of pork. I voted against the budget agreement last month, in large part because it allowed too much new spending. And the HUD and independent agencies portion of this bill is evidence of what we can expect as the agreement is fully implemented. That is why next year's budget deficit is projected to rise--and not fall --as a result of the agreement. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that we do not have an opportunity to consider the various components of this bill on their own merits-- veterans, HUD, EPA, NASA, AmeriCorps, and the like. I would have supported the veterans budget, the NASA budget, and environmental spending in the bill. But as a package, with the very large increase in HUD spending and a lack of sufficient offsets for it, I concluded that it was necessary to register concern about the process and our country's future, and to vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for obtaining time this morning to speak on this important issue.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1998 agriculture spending bill that comes before us today totals $3.2 billion less than was spent on agriculture-related programs last year, and $12.6 billion less than was spent the prior year. That is an actual reduction in spending, from $63.3 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $50.7 billion this year--an astounding 20 percent cut. Mr. President, the savings are due in large part to the more market- oriented farm policies that Congress approved in 1996--policies that I supported. The Freedom to Farm Act did away with the decades-old policy of providing subsidies to farmers when market prices dropped. It did away with the policy of requiring farmers to plant the same crops every year and instead established a system of fixed, declining payments on the way to a farm policy free of Government intervention. The substantial savings in farm programs will allow us to target more funding to high-priority domestic programs, like the Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] nutrition program and the Food and Drug Administration's food safety initiative. WIC alone would receive an additional $121 million in the upcoming fiscal year. And without price supports and other subsidies to artificially boost the cost of food, every family's food budget will eventually go farther. WIC recipients will get more for their food dollar. Taxpayers will save. Every family will save. Given that spending is better prioritized, and given the substantial savings achieved in this bill, I intend to vote for it. Nevertheless, I believe we have the opportunity to do even better. Corporate welfare programs, like the Market Access Program, which subsidizes the advertising budgets of U.S. companies overseas, is still funded by this bill. It should be cut or eliminated. Spending on the tobacco, sugar, and peanut programs could also be reduced. These programs were largely preserved, notwithstanding other reforms in the 1996 farm bill. We ought to phase them out as well. There are a variety of special funding earmarks in this bill that could be the subject of the President's new line-item veto authority. The veto could be applied, for example, to almost all of the nearly 100 special research grants earmarked within the Cooperate State Research, Education, and Extension Service budget. The Committee report identifies grants totalling $47.5 million for such activities as maple research, alternative salmon products, goat research, and potato research, to name just a few. Most of these grants were not requested by the President. It may well be that some of these research activities have merit and should proceed, but I would ask why taxpayers should be obligated, particularly to fund those projects that specifically benefit targeted industries? More money could always be spent to find ways of enhancing productivity, improving flavor or appearance, or increasing resistance to disease or drought. It seems to me, however, that producers--whether they grow potatoes, blueberries, cranberries, or goats--have every reason and incentive to bear the costs of research that leads to better crops or improved sales. That is, after all, a fundamental cost of doing business. At the very least, we ought to ensure that such grants are awarded on a competitive basis after adequate peer review. Mr. President, there is similar earmarking in the Agricultural Research Service budget--set-asides for improving postharvest technologies for apples, for hops research, and the enhancement of peanut flavor quality. The list goes on and on. I would not be surprised if any of these projects was to be among the first that the President strikes with the line-item veto. Since a reduction of 20 percent in the overall budget should be recognized, I intend to support the bill. But I will also be inclined to support vetoes of some items in the legislation. karnal bunt Mr. President, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss an ongoing issue that has severely affected the wheat industry in Arizona. Karnal bunt was discovered in Arizona in March 1996. Growers and seed producers have been hard hit since then, and progress has been made only in the area of compensation. USDA continues to hold the wheat-seed industry under a Karnal bunt-spore quarantine, a decision that has devastated this once stable and profitable industry. Though Karnal bunt poses no health threat to humans or animals, USDA refuses to lift the quarantine. Furthermore, the results of tests conducted by the USDA Agriculture Research Service scientists support findings by the University of Arizona that spores from ryegrass can severely bunt wheat. The science in this area is very involved, but what it boils down to is that USDA officials continue to contend that there exist two separate spores for bunting wheat; they refuse to acknowledge the Agriculture Research Service test results. These results show that we are talking about one and the same spore, not two separate spores. Yet ryegrass and wheat continue to be treated differently, one is not quarantined but the other is. Arizona remains the only State under quarantine. Mr. President, we are talking about an Arizona industry that produced more than 335,000 tons of wheat in 1995 at a value of $46.2 million. The value of the 1996 crop before Karnal bunt was expected to top $80 million. This year, Arizona wheatgrowers planted approximately 20 percent less wheat due to Karnal bunt restrictions. Dr. Bruce Beatty of the University of Arizona estimates losses of more than $100 million, an estimate given in Federal court testimony that has not been challenged by the USDA. Obviously, the wheat industry plays a vital role in the economy of Arizona. In a June 19 speech made to the International Grains Council, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman stated that ``perhaps the greatest threat to free trade is phony science.'' He continued, ``Unfounded sanitary and phytosanitary objections have the potential to wreck the delicate balance of fairness we are trying to establish.'' Fairness is all Arizona seeks. The USDA policy in addressing the Karnal bunt issue has failed. Science has shown that severe bunting of wheat can occur from spores determined to be ryegrass in nature from Oregon, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia. Yet Arizona remains the only State under quarantine. Therefore, I call on the Secretary to lift the quarantine that has wreaked havoc on the Arizona wheat industry.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the comments made by my colleagues regarding our need for a strong nuclear energy program. I agree that nuclear energy research and development enhance both our economic competitiveness on the civilian side and our national security by allowing us to participate as a full partner in the uses of nuclear energy worldwide.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support an amendment I have offered to the national Defense authorization for fiscal year 1998 that sets conditions for continued United States assistance to Russia for the purpose of chemical weapons [CW] dismantlement and destruction. I offer this amendment because I am disturbed that-- despite the fact that the United States has already provided $150 million in CW destruction aid to Russia through the Cooperative Threat Reduction [CTR] Program--we appear no closer today than when we started this endeavor to meeting our core objective of eliminating Russia's offensive chemical weapons capability. Instead, Russia has to date failed to demonstrate a commitment-- either political or financial--to destroying its chemical weapons capability. Russia has not lived up to CW agreements it has signed. It has failed to implement obligations undertaken in the 1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement [BDA], which calls for United States verification of the destruction of Russian chemical stocks. And Russia is not working with us to resolve outstanding compliance issues associated with the 1989 bilateral Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding, which requires both sides to fully and accurately account for their respective chemical weapons stockpile. Moreover, Russian ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] remains a distant prospect, despite the fact that one of the principal arguments made in favor of United States ratification was that it would induce the Russians to do the same. In the meantime, Mr. President, as we continue to pour into Russia more and more chemical weapons destruction aid, the Russians continue to pour more and more rubles into developing ever more deadly chemical weapons. According to press reports, Russia has developed three new nerve agents made from chemicals--used for industrial and agricultural purposes--which are not covered by the CWC. This development program has been confirmed by a prominent Russian scientist who was jailed for revealing Moscow's continuation of covert chemical weapons production. In addition, Russia continues to modernize its strategic offensive forces. According to a recent Hoover Institution study, Russian spending on research and development for strategic weapons has increased sixfold in the last 3 years. They are developing an upgraded mobile ICBM; working on miniaturized nuclear warheads; building a new class of SLBM-carrying submarines; and constructing enormous underground command and control bunkers to protect against a nuclear attack by the United States. In light of these ongoing strategic and chemical modernization efforts, it is more than reasonable, Mr. President, to question seriously Russian claims that they do not have the financial wherewithal to destroy their chemical weapons stockpile. It seems to me that United States assistance to Russia for CW destruction has, in fact, had the perverse effect of underwriting Russia's offensive chemical program. Moreover, the practice of providing unconditioned funding reduces, if not eliminates, any incentive for Russia to set aside its own resources for matching United States funds. I would note that, while the United States has authorized $150 million for the purpose of destroying Russian chemical weapons and nearly half of that has been obligated, Russia has committed only $24 million for destruction of its own CW stocks, but has failed to obligate or spend any of this money. My proposed amendment conditions fiscal year 1998 United States assistance to Russia for CW destruction--totaling $55 million--to Russia's living up to existing agreements concerning destruction and dismantlement of its chemical weapons capability. The amendment closely parallels the approach taken in the fiscal year 1996 National Defense Authorization, when both Houses of Congress agreed to fence--but not cut--Nunn-Lugar funds for CW-related activities until the President certified certain conditions were met. It is also very similar to a provision contained in the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 1997, S. 495, which the Senate approved in April of this year. The intent is to reassure the Russians that--if they are serious about getting rid of their chemical weapons--we are fully prepared to offer them financial assistance to do so. However, the amendment is intended to make equally clear that the United States Congress does not intend for the American taxpayer to subsidize a continuing Russian offensive chemical weapons capability. Specifically, the amendment requires the President to certify that three conditions are met before Cooperative Threat Reduction funds for CW destruction may be released: First, that the Russians are making reasonable progress toward implementation of the 1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement [BDA]; Second, that the United States has made substantial progress toward resolution, to its satisfaction, of outstanding compliance issues related to the Wyoming MOU and BDA; and Third, that Russia has fully and accurately declared all information regarding its chemical weapons programs. If the President cannot certify that these conditions are met, the proposed amendment does provide an alternative for releasing funds. In such a case, the President must however certify that ``the national security interests of the United States could be undermined'' by not carrying out the CW destruction activities provided for in the CTR Program. Mr. President, it was my original hope to go beyond what we agreed in S. 495, and to send an even stronger message to the Russians that a mutually beneficial bilateral relationship requires both parties to demonstrate a firm commitment to live up to agreements already undertaken and to work together toward common goals. I am disturbed that, since enactment of S. 495, the CWC has entered into force without Russian participation, Russia has failed to renounce its offensive chemical warfare program, the Russian Duma has refused to allocate any new funds for CW destruction, and we have not reached any agreement under the CTR Program to cap our own contribution to this endeavor. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that this amendment sends a signal to the Russians and, if enacted into law, I encourage the President and senior administration officials to use this amendment for maximum leverage to induce the Russians to once and for all forswear a offensive chemical weapons capability. land conveyance at fort dix

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendments numbered 605 and 607 and substitute for them versions of amendments 605 and 607 which have been cleared by both sides.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, may I ask the majority leader this question? I simply want to withdraw two amendments and substitute versions that have been cleared on both sides. I wonder if I might do that before the Bingaman amendment is discussed this evening.

Mr. KYL. I appreciate that. Amendment No. 605, As Modified and Amendment No. 607, As Modified Further

Mr. KYL

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

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

Mr. KYL. If there is no objection, the second amendment is amendment No. 605. I call up that amendment at this time.