Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. What is the Chairman's understanding of the process that the Secretary will use to consider requests to take newly acquired lands in trust for the Hopi Tribe pursuant to the settlement agreement and this act?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, at this point, I ask the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. KYL. As you know, the general authority of the Secretary to take land in trust was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the case of United States Department of the Interior, et al. versus State of South Dakota and City of Oacoma. Does the authority for the Secretary to take newly acquired lands in trust pursuant to the settlement agreement and this act rely on that general authority?

Mr. KYL. Does this act establish a Federal reserved right to the use of groundwater on the newly acquired trust lands?

Mr. KYL. Does the Senator agree that the water rights granted by this act to the Hopi Tribe on newly acquired trust lands are not Federal reserved water rights, but instead are Federal statutory rights granted solely by this legislation as part of a unique settlement tailored to the unique circumstances surrounding the Navajo-Hopi land dispute?

Mr. KYL. Does the Senator agree that, as a matter of longstanding Congressional policy, Congress recognizes the principle that State water law governs the allocation and use of water within a State, subject to the Federal Government's power to reserve and establish water rights for the purposes associated with Federal lands and Indian reservations?

Mr. KYL. Does the Senator agree that the fact that Congress sees fit to grant these water rights in this act reflects the circumstances unique to the Navajo-Hopi dispute, and does not reflect any intention by the Congress to depart from its general policy with respect to the primacy of State water law?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act, S. 1973, represents the culmination of several years' worth of very difficult negotiations involving the Navajo and Hopi Tribes, Navajo families residing on Hopi Partitioned Lands, the U.S. Departments of Interior and Justice, the State of Arizona, and representatives of the tribes' non-Indian neighbors in Arizona. The bill, and the settlement agreement that it ratifies, are the result of good faith efforts by all parties. Taken together, they may well represent the last, best chance to resolve this land dispute with a minimum of pain and disruption to members of the Indian tribes. Still, this is not a perfect agreement, and I must say for the record that I am not entirely convinced that it will fully resolve the land dispute. The very basis of the settlement is the 75-year leases that the Hopi Tribe will offer to Navajo families who still reside on the HPL and who wish to remain there. By its own design, the settlement carries with it the prospect that the dispute will arise again in 75 years when those leases expire. The question is, what will happen if the Hopi Tribe does not extend the leases in 75 years, and our successors find that the problem not only remains, but that the number of Navajos in the area has increased significantly? Will the United States be asked to commit hundreds of millions more taxpayer dollars to another painful relocation program? Even though the Hopi indicate now that, if the United States fulfills its obligations under the settlement, it will have fulfilled all of its obligations to the tribe in this matter, what will the obligations of the United States really be 75 years from now--when individuals yet unborn have assumed leadership of the tribes, the Congress, the administration, and the State and local governments? I caution anyone to be under no illusion that we are permanently settling the land dispute. I suspect that Congress will be asked to find some other way to resolve it--maybe even sooner than 75 years from now. Nevertheless, I am willing to allow this agreement to go forward, in large part because the Hopi Chairman, Ferrell Secakuku, has given me his word that the agreement is in the best interest of the Hopi people and that the tribe will do its best to accommodate Navajo families who wish to remain on the HPL. I am also willing to allow it to go forward because changes made during the course of the Senate's consideration have made it at least somewhat more likely that the settlement will succeed. For example, we have made parts of the agreement contingent upon 85 percent of the Navajo families signing the lease agreements or accepting relocation benefits. That will ensure some degree of finality before the benefits of resolution--namely, the granting of trust status to lands acquired by the Hopi--are awarded. It will also ensure that a significant majority of the Navajo families are willing participants in the arrangement--something that will improve the prospects of long-term success. We have also included language to minimize the effect on the tribe's non-Indian neighbors. For example, we say that the taking in trust of any lands, any portion of which falls within a 5-mile radius of an incorporated city or town, will require the specific approval of Congress. We authorize the capitalization of a fund to compensate local governments for any loss of tax revenues resulting from the taking of lands in trust. We codify the understandings in the agreement about the location and character of lands that can be taken in trust, and codify the rights of the State of Arizona with regard to State lands that the Hopi may acquire. Mr. President, the bill includes important language regarding rights to water on any newly acquired trust lands, and of course, water is the most critical issue for others in Arizona who may be affected by the settlement. In fact, it was the issue of water rights that has proven to be one of the most difficult to resolve. Initially, the agreement and the bill were silent on the issue, suggesting that Congress might have been creating a new unquantified Federal reserved water right in this legislation. It is my view that such a right is not implicit in the taking of land in trust; any water rights that exist, exist only as Congress specifically provides in statute. With that in mind, language in the bill clearly spells out what water rights will exist on the newly acquired trust lands. Although the language is not as I would have written it, it is largely acceptable to water users in Arizona who are most likely be affected by the implementation of the settlement, with the exception of the city of Flagstaff. In that regard, Chairman Ferrell Secakuku of the Hopi Tribe sent a letter dated September 23, 1996, to Mayor Bavasi of Flagstaff, pledging that it is not the intent of the Hopi Tribe, as part of the settlement of the land dispute, to affect adversely the city's water use. I ask unanimous consent that the chairman's letter and a copy of a letter clarifying the city's understanding of the tribe's position be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. The chairman pledged in his letter to meet with Mayor Bavasi within the next few weeks to develop a mechanism whereby the city's interests can be accommodated, and I take the chairman at his word that the tribe will not adversely affect the city's interest. It is based on the chairman's assurances that I am not seeking additional language in the bill at this time. I am sending letters to both the chairman and the mayor encouraging them to meet expeditiously on the matter and come to resolution, and I will look forward to early progress reports from them. Mr. President, let me address for a moment specific language in the bill. Subsection 12(a)(1)(A) permits the reasonable use of groundwater pumped on newly acquired trust lands; provisions in section 12(h) of the bill make it clear, however, that this should not be construed as establishing a Federal reserved right to ground water. Another provision allows the Hopi to maintain all rights to the use of surface water on such lands that exist under State law on the date of acquisition, and it allows the tribe to make any further beneficial use, on newly acquired trust lands, of surface water which is unappropriated on the date that each parcel of newly acquired trust lands is taken into trust. These rights are constrained. With respect to ground water, the bill requires the tribe to recognize as valid all uses of ground water which may be made from wells, or their subsequent replacements, in existence on the date each parcel of newly acquired trust land is acquired. The tribe shall not object to such ground water uses on the basis of water rights associated with the newly acquired trust lands. The tribe agrees to limit any objection only to the impact on newly acquired trust lands of ground water uses which are initiated after the date the lands affected are taken in trust, and only on grounds allowed by State law as it exists when the objection is made. Let me say that again--objection can be made only on grounds allowed by State law when the objection is made. The tribe further agrees not to object to ground water uses that affect the tribe's right to surface water established under subsection 12(a)(1)(C) when those ground water uses are initiated before the tribe initiates its beneficial use of surface water pursuant to that subsection. The tribe further agrees to recognize as valid all uses of surface water in existence on or prior to the date each parcel of newly acquired trust land is acquired, and shall not object to such surface- water uses on the basis of water rights associated with the newly acquired trust lands. The tribe may enforce the priority of its rights to surface water against junior surface water rights, but only to the extent that the exercise of those junior rights interferes with the actual use of the tribe's senior surface water rights. Mr. President, the creation of the limited right to the beneficial use of unappropriated surface water that is created here--and I emphasize the language included in section 12(h) that says explicitly that such a right is not a Federal reserved water right--can interfere with the rights of others who lawfully put water to beneficial use in the State after the passage of this bill, and that is the problem. The tribe could, for example, assert a senior right to such unappropriated surface water many years from now, having never put the water to beneficial use, while others, including cities and towns in northern Arizona, and private parties, have floated bonds, made investments, and made other economic development plans based on water that is available in the interim and lawfully put to beneficial use. Moreover, the creation of even a limited right to water for new lands acquired by the Hopi could undermine the entire Little Colorado River adjudication should the tribe assert the right many years in the future, after the adjudication process has been completed. The fact is, there is no need to create any additional water right, even the limited right that is included here. The settlement allows the Hopi to choose any land the tribe wishes, including land with very secure and senior water rights. Those rights may well be senior to the bill's limited right, with its priority date that the lands are taken in trust. The tribe can choose to buy land with very good State-law water rights, or none at all. It should not, however, be allowed to secure existing State-law rights and even a limited right to some additional amount of water. Nevertheless, I am willing to allow the legislation to go forward first, because, according to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, the amount of unappropriated water in this instance is negligible; second, because the Hopi Tribe has agreed to try to accommodate the city of Flagstaff's further concerns; third, because the right is carefully defined and limited by section 12(b); and fourth, because language in section 12(h) makes it explicit that nothing in this legislation shall imply that a Federal reserved water right is created or that State law shall not apply. Amendment Nos. 5407, 5408, 5409, 5410, and 5411

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair. Madam President, when President Clinton vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on April 10, he said there are ``rare and tragic situations that can occur in a woman's pregnancy in which, in a doctor's medical judgment, the use of this procedure may be necessary to save a woman's life or to protect her against serious injury to her health.'' The former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. C. Everett Koop--a man who President Clinton singled out for praise on August 23 as someone trying ``to bring some sanity into the health policy of this country''--has said that ``partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility.'' Let me say that again: it is never necessary. That is consistent with testimony that the Judiciary Committee received from other medical experts last fall. Dr. Nancy Romer, a practicing OB-GYN from Ohio, testified that in her 13 years of experience, she has never felt compelled to recommend this procedure to save a woman's life. ``In fact,'' she said, ``if a woman has a serious, life threatening, medical condition this procedure has a significant disadvantage in that it takes 3 days.'' Dr. Pamela Smith asked during her testimony before the Committee: Why would a procedure that is considered to impose a significant risk to maternal health when it is used to deliver a baby alive, suddenly become the ``safe method of choice'' when the goal is to kill the baby? And if abortion providers wanted to demonstrate that somehow this procedure would be safe in later-pregnancy abortions, even though its use has routinely been discouraged in modern obstetrics, why didn't they go before institutional review boards, obtain consent to perform what amounts to human experimentation, and conduct adequately controlled, appropriately supervised studies that would insure accurate, informed consent of patients and the production of valid scientific information for the medical community? Even Dr. Warren Hern, the author of the Nation's most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures, is quoted in the November 20, 1995 edition of American Medical News as saying that he would ``dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'' He called it ``potentially dangerous'' to a woman to turn a fetus to a breech position, as occurs during a partial-birth abortion. Defending the indefensible is an understandably difficult task for President Clinton and other defenders of this procedure. What decent person does not get a shiver up the spine upon hearing a description of a partial-birth abortion, a procedure that was characterized by a member of the American Medical Association's legislative council as ``basically repulsive'' and ``not a recognized medical technique.'' I suspect that was why the council went on to vote unanimously to endorse the partial-birth abortion ban just over a year ago. It is because the procedure is so difficult to defend that some have tried to suggest that it is used only in cases that threaten a mother's life or health. Let me note, then, the words of Dr. Martin Haskell, who authored a paper on the subject for the National Abortion Federation. In an interview with American Medical News, Dr. Haskell said, ``in my particular case, probably 20 percent (of the instances of this procedure) are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective.'' Eighty percent are elective--not medically necessary--but elective. Another doctor, Dr. James McMahon, who performed at least 2,000 of these procedures, told American Medical News that he used the method to perform elective abortions up to 26 weeks and non-elective abortions up to 40 weeks. His definition of ``non-elective'' was expansive, including ``depression'' as a maternal indication for the procedure. More than half of the partial-birth abortions he performed were on healthy babies. And what did the Record of Bergen County, NJ, find when it published an investigative report on the issue just last week? It reported that in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year, far more than the 450 to 500 such abortions that the National Abortion Federation claims occur across the entire country. According to the Record, doctors it interviewed said that only a ``minuscule amount'' of these abortions are performed for medical reasons. The medical experts tell us that this procedure is neither necessary nor safe. It is not done out of medical necessity, but largely for elective reasons. That is why so many people around this country are opposed to this procedure, and why even its most ardent defenders are uncomfortable discussing it. In his recent book, Judge Robert Bork wrote about the squandering of our common cultural inheritance in the name of radical individualism. What could be more radical than suggesting that individuals can interrupt the birth process and suction the brains out of a healthy viable child, all in the name of free choice? Does not sanctioning the death of a child for no reason other than convenience denigrate the idea that there is inherrent value in every person? Judge Bork wrote that ``security has become a religion.'' ``We demand it not only from government,'' he said, ``but from schools and employers. We demand to be protected, he goes on to say, ``not only from major catastrophe but from minor inconvenience.'' There are striking parallels here with the procedure we are discussing. In its report on partial-birth abortion, the New Jersey Record found that the procedure was performed mostly on people ``who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were.'' Is choice, free of consequence or responsibility, truly free? Or are we simply putting government more in charge of our choice and freedom by protecting us from the consequences of our own actions? It seems to me that people of good faith can debate when, during a pregnancy, life begins--whether it is at conception, at the end of the first trimester, or at some other point. But I think it is very difficult to make the case that life has not begun once a pregnancy is well along when a baby can be delivered either to be saved and live, or just before completely born to be brutally killed. If a doctor performing a partial-birth abortion happened to allow the child to completely clear the mother's body, it would have the same protections under our Constitution that any other human being would have. The difference between life and death here is literally a matter of inches. The hands and feet are in this world and are living and moving. The chest is visibly breathing. Only the head remains in the birth canal; and it is dismembered in this procedure. Madam President, President Clinton has taken the position that abortion is justified for any reason, under any circumstance, no matter how far along the pregnancy. I intend to vote to override the veto. I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and put an end to this cruel and barbaric procedure.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendments being offered by Senator Grassley and to express my concerns about this bill. Members of the 104th Congress have tried their best to eliminate pork- barrel spending and corporate welfare. I believe we have made some progress, but clearly, as this bill demonstrates, we have a long way to go. I support the amendments offered by my colleague from Iowa because this bill is nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy. It authorizes $100 million per year for the maritime fleet to provide sealift capacity in times of national emergency. Each vessel in the program would receive $2.1 million per year for being enrolled in the program. This does not include the additional moneys that may be paid in times of war. The CBO estimates that the program will cost $782 million in the first 5 years, including expenditures for the phasing out of the old system. The bill has several problems. First, it does not allow the United States to requisition subsidized U.S. ships in a national emergency. It would allow U.S. flag-carriers to protect specific vessels from shipping materials to a war zone. If commercial interests determine which vessels go and when, we should pay them on an as-needed basis. We shouldn't pay for a benefit we don't receive. Second, the bill does not require those seafarers who are in the Maritime-Security fleet to serve when called. During the Persian Gulf war, our country had to draw from a pool of retired merchant mariners to care for our fleet. That is wrong and it should be changed. Under this program, merchant mariners can earn more money than their military counterparts for war-time pay. The bill should be corrected to make merchant-mariners bonuses commensurate with those of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. I have been told of one merchant mariner who was paid thousands of dollars for a few months worth of service during the Persian Gulf war. Most enlisted military officers received far less than that. Finally, the bill must require those carriers who receive a taxpayer subsidy to carry war materials into the war zone. The maritime fleet must not be allowed to drop off war materials to commercially convenient spots. If the taxpayers are paying for this service, then it is our duty to ensure that they receive what they are paying for. Mr. President, the defects of the bill are not figments of the imagination conjured up by a few budget hawks. The Vice President's National Performance Review recommended that all maritime subsidies be ended for a savings of $23 billion over a 10-year period. The Department of Transportation's inspector general concluded that the entire Maritime Administration and all of its U.S.-flag subsidies should be terminated. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that international cargo preference laws will cost Federal Government agencies an additional $600 million in fiscal year 1996. A November 1994 GAO report said that cargo-preference policies support at most 6,000 of the 21,000 mariners in the U.S. merchant marine industry. That is an annual cost of $100,000 per seafarer--at taxpayer expense. Additionally, Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, and Americans for Tax Reform are opposed to the bill. The Federal debt is more that $5 trillion. Five years ago, the debt was $3.6 trillion. Clearly, Government spending is out of control and Congress must place priorities in the way it spends taxpayer dollars. Most families live under a budget. Most have a limited amount of resources that they must spend on food, clothing, shelter, and the like. And many families have little left over for the extras in life. They don't spend for every whim because they know that they must stay within their means. Why can't Congress do the same? Why can't Congress spend the people's money on core tasks only. Why can't Congress forgo the extras? It will take a colossal effort to control the Government's debt. But every long journey begins with the first step. I urge my colleagues to take that first step and vote against this bill. I thank the chairman and ranking member for the opportunity to express my concerns.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the economic espionage bill introduced by Senators specter and Kohl. I was pleased that the Senate Judiciary Committee passed this bill, which will strengthen current public law on crimes against our industries. It will protect our businesses by punishing those who steal vital proprietary information for the benefit of a foreign government or a corporation. Economic espionage is not a new crime. The success of many U.S. firms has made them a large target for the theft of trade secrets. It is much easier for a foreign firm to steal American trade secrets, with little or no penalty, than it is for a firm to spend a large amount of capital on research and development. Economic espionage may be the future of intelligence. Only recently have American firms begun to recognize the economic impact espionage has on U.S. firms. In 1992, a survey by the American society for Industrial Security discovered that American firms lost roughly $597 million in product development and specification data and $110 million in manufacturing process information, due to espionage. These losses are likely to continue. I am pleased that the Chairman and ranking member have produced a bill that will for the first time penalize those who try to steal ideas that Americans have worked hard to develop. One problem not yet adequately addressed is how to collect necessary intelligence in an age when encryption protects computer communication. In order to maintain our national security interests, I support some measure of constitutional authority to collect intelligence even in situations where communications have been encrypted. To that end, Mr. President, I am hopeful that my colleagues will adopt an amendment to this bill that Senator grassley and I have sponsored. It will amend the federal sentencing guidelines to require that the Federal Sentencing Commission collect, compile, and report annually on information collected from pretrial sentence reports and other relevant documents indicating the use of encryption to further or conceal criminal conduct. Whatever one's view of export policy, it is clear that law enforcement must have better records of criminals who use encryption technology. This amendment will accomplish that. Mr. President, passing an economic espionage law will deter criminals from stealing trade secrets from American businesses. I urge my colleagues to adopt our amendment and pass the bill.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President. I rise to comment on S. 982, the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act. I was pleased that the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed the bill that Senator Leahy and I introduced, which will strengthen current public law on computer crime and protect the national information infrastructure. It will protect banks, hospitals, and other information-intensive businesses which maintain sensitive computer files from those who improperly enter into computer systems. Although there has never been an accurate nationwide reporting system for computer crime, it is clear that computer crime is rising. For example, the Computer Emergency and Response Team [CERT] at Carnegie- Mellon University reports that computer intrusions have increased from 132 in 1989 to 2,341 last year. A recent Rand Corporation study reported 1,172 hacking incidents during the first 6 months of 1994. Clearly there is a need to reform the current criminal statutes covering computer abuse. The law needs to keep pace with technology. Crime is increasingly being perpetrated electronically, and we need to amend our laws to stop it. We, therefore, introduced the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act last year. Why is this bill important? First, it will protect against the interstate or foreign theft of information by computer. The provision is necessary because the court held, in the case of United States v. Brown, 925 F.2d 1301, 1308 (10th Cir. 1991), that purely intangible intellectual property, such as computer programs, do not count as goods, wares, merchandise, securities, or moneys which have been stolen, converted, or taken within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314, the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. There are no Federal penalties for theft of computer information across state lines or internationally. In most cases, the Department of Justice attempts to use other statutes to prosecute these criminals. Second, the provision adds a new section to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to provide penalties for the interstate or international transmission of threats against computers, computer networks, and their data and programs. Unlawful threats would include interference in any way with the normal operation of the computer or system in question, such as denying access to authorized users, erasing or corrupting data or programs, slowing down the operation of the computer or system, or encrypting data and then demanding money for the key. The provision is important because there have been cases where hackers have threatened to demolish a computer information system unless they were granted free access to accounts. It is sophisticated extortion. Finally, S. 982 amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030(a)(4) to ensure that felony-level sanctions apply when unauthorized use, or use in excess of authorization, is significant. Hackers, for example, have broken into computers only for the purpose of using their processing programs, sometimes amassing computer time worth far more than $5,000. The bill would penalize those whose trespassing, in which only computer use is obtained, amounts to greater than $5,000 during any 1-year period. Companies should not be stuck with the bill for electronic joyriders. Although they may not damage or steal information, hackers who browse through computer systems are a significant liability to businesses who must pay for a new security system, and the expensive time the hacker used. There is widespread support for changes to the statute. For example, Attorney General Reno, in connection with the June 27, 1995 oversight hearing of the Department of Justice, said that S. 982 would ``address many of the concerns that have been identified by computer security experts with respect to the need for greater protection of networks.'' As FBI Director Louis Freeh responded, when asked during the February 28, 1996 joint hearing with the Select Committee on Intelligence on Economic Espionage, if he would appreciate the Senate acting on S. 982, ``[S. 982] does fill a gap. It's very important.'' On October 11, 1995 the Deputy Assistant Director of Investigations of the United States Secret Service, speaking before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, listed S. 982 as one of the bills that ``enhance our ability to investigate and prosecute violations domestically, while offering guidelines for foreign government authorities.'' This bill is timely because of the recent incident concerning the Department of Justice's homepage. Hackers penetrated the DOJ's computers, leaving pictures of swastikas and Adolph Hitler for the world to view. The damage caused by these criminals should not be prosecuted by relying on common law criminal mischief statutes. If our bill had been law, Federal prosecutors could have charged the hackers with violating more than trespassing statutes. Mr. President, the Kyl-Leahy National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1995 will deter criminal activity and protect our Nation's infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to pass the bill.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, let me say the Senator from Texas is to be complimented for beginning this very important discussion which I think, frankly, is going to have to go on for some time here until we can get this matter resolved. It boils down to something very, very simple. On the one hand, you have the administration making substantial international commitments for the deployment and use of American military forces which will cost billions of dollars of money, and, at the same time, you have the administration suggesting that unless the Congress is willing to take money from the defense budget and spend it on other things that the President wants, there is the possibility of a Presidential veto of the defense appropriations bill. Mr. President, we have been, I think, appropriately discreet here in this body in sharing our views on international policy, especially as it relates to the Middle East and the President's action in Iraq. We passed a resolution here overwhelmingly supporting the action that the administration took and supporting our troops in Iraq. We have not gone out of our way to criticize the President's policy there, even though many of us have grave concerns and questions about where that policy is leading us. But when it comes to passing the defense authorization and defense appropriations bill, this body has a responsibility to ensure that our military forces have what they need to carry out these commitments. And nobody, Mr. President, more than you, as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has fought harder over the years to ensure that our troops have what they need. I remember that after the Persian Gulf war was over and everyone was passing out compliments to Secretary Cheney and to President Bush and to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, they all pointed out that what won that war was the character and skill of our men and women who were fighting there and the decisions that were made 10 or 12 years before by the Senate, by the House, and by the administrations at that time to begin the research and development of the smart weapons and other weapons that we used in the Persian Gulf war. That is what enabled us to win that war quickly and with a minimum of casualties. Now we are again engaged in conflict in Iraq, and we are again using those same weapons, and at the same time the President is suggesting that we have to cut the defense budget because he wants to spend more money in other areas. I remind my colleagues that last year we added money back into the defense bill to buy Tomahawk missiles, more than the President requested. He did not request that money. We said, you are going to have to buy more Tomahawk missiles because that is what we are going to need if we have another conflict in the Middle East. And what happened? We had another challenge from Saddam Hussein, and the President ordered the firing of Tomahawk missiles. I am glad that the Senate disagreed with the President on that last year, added that money in, and we had those Tomahawk missiles ready to go to fight this conflict. Now we have the same issue again. Are we going to be permitted to properly fund the military forces? What we are suggesting is still far less than the military was provided last year. So this is not an increase over last year's spending. It is less money. It is more money than the President requested, and that is because we have identified some areas in which we think the administration's request was deficient, just as it was with the Tomahawk missiles last year. Mr. President, it boils down to this. I have a lot of statistics here and might ask for unanimous consent to submit some matters in writing that gets into the specifics, but I know that my other colleagues here wish to add their voices to this concern. So I am just going to make this statement very generally. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this statistical information and related material.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I inform the Senator from Texas, probably about 5 minutes, if that is acceptable.

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. Just to summarize it this way, nothing is more important than the defense of our country and ensuring that when the Commander in Chief gives the order for our young men and women to go into combat, to risk their lives, that ensuring that they have the means of achieving their missions in the safest way possible. As I read a couple days ago about the first F-111 pilot at the beginning of the gulf war, on the very first night, who had to fly through the flak over Baghdad, he drew the lucky straw, or the unlucky straw, as it may be. He and his wing man told the story about how the night was black, it was eerie, but he could see the lights of Baghdad in the distance. And he said, as he got closer, it looked like a big fireworks display, there was so much flak over that city. He knew he had to fly through that. But he had the training and he had the equipment because we provided it, and he got through in good shape and performed his mission. We can never shortchange the men and women that we send into combat without adequate equipment. That is why it is so important that the President get on board here and agree with us to fund the military to the degree that is necessary, to the degree that your committee has recommended. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the FAA authorization bill. Although I recognize the necessity to authorize certain FAA activities, such as the Airport Improvement Program [AIP], I am concerned with two provisions in the bill. I appreciate the hard work that the managers have put in on this legislation, and I thank them for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I support the reauthorization of FAA activities, believing that the managers have succeeded in funding the AIP program at the appropriate level. It is important to many airports and travelers around the country that Congress finish its work in this area. For example, in my home State of Arizona, officials from the airports in Phoenix, Chandler, Glendale, Yuma, and Tucson have contacted me in support of the AIP program. The FAA has projected that the number of passengers in the domestic aviation system will reach 800 million annually. The American Association of Airport Executives and the Airports Council International-North America recently completed a comprehensive study on the capital needs of U.S. airports. The study concluded that the Nation's airports have capital needs around $10 billion annually. So I urge my colleagues to support the authorization of the AIP program. While I support parts of the bill, I must comment on two provisions which I believe Congress must be careful in implementing. First, there is a provision that would set up an independent task force to study how FAA activities may be funded for many years. I am concerned that the task force may be used to implement a user-fee system. I ask that the chairman and the ranking member to work with the task force to ensure that all areas of aviation are heard. Many in my State have expressed concern about funding FAA activities with a user-fee system. I believe it could have a negative effect on such local airlines as America West and Southwest. Arizona is also a State with many citizens who pilot their own planes, and I am advised such a system could harm the general aviation industry. I support the current ticket-tax system and I am glad that Congress approved its temporary extension as part of the small business tax relief bill. My second concern is that the parts of the bill that address aviation security will not adequately protect us. I know that it is easy to get caught up in the apprehensions created in the wake of the crash of TWA flight 800. We all want to make aviation a safer means of transportation, but we must have the proper priorities. I believe that any changes to aviation security should focus on greater intelligence gathering. If the explosion on TWA flight 800 was a bombing, it was a terrorist attack not on a particular airline but against our whole country. We must take strong and concerted steps as a nation to deal with such heinous attacks. A strong intelligence system is the key here. Recently, the Air Transport Association made several recommendations to the White House Commission on Aviation Safety, chaired by Vice President Gore. I would like to make note of two of ATA's recommendations. First, the association told the Gore Commission that there must be an increase in the amount of funding available to develop the software necessary for automated passenger profiling--that is, profiling of suspects who may be traveling the airways. ATA member airlines, according to the association, are committed to the full implementation of automated passenger profiling through their reservations systems. Second, ATA recommended that the commission should establish strong, new inter-agency coordination requirements to ensure the timely, accurate, and comprehensive communication of detailed intelligence assessment information necessary to permit the informed participation of the aviation industry in responding to identified threats. Mr. President, there will be many antiterrorist initiatives which I believe will help thwart terrorist attacks, such as more advanced detection devices and bomb-sniffing dogs. However, I believe that our priority must be to develop ways to enhance the tracking of those persons already identified as a threat to the general public. I urge the chairman and ranking member to make note of my concerns, and I thank them for the opportunity to discuss the issues.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, during the last few weeks, as the Presidential election campaign has gotten underway, the American people have heard a great deal about two very different tax plans for the country. One of the plans proposed by President Clinton involves token relief if--and I stress if--people spend their money in ways that the Government deems most appropriate. The other plan represents the most ambitious, progrowth economic program since the beginning of the Reagan administration, a program that puts faith in the American people to spend their money in ways that are best for themselves and their families and their communities. Mr. President, the ambitious program that I am talking about is the one that Bob Dole has made the centerpiece of his campaign. It is a plan that would cut income tax rates across the board by 15 percent, a plan that would provide families with an additional $500 per child tax credit, and an opportunity to save in new education investment accounts for college education. It would repeal the President's 1993 tax on Social Security, and it would provide important incentives for job creation through capital gains tax reduction. What does all of this mean for the average American family? For a family of four earning $35,000 a year, it would mean a savings of over $1,400 a year, a 51.8 percent reduction in that family's tax bill. In other words, it cuts the tax bill in half. For a family making $75,000 a year, it means a savings of 26.7 percent. It cuts that family's tax liability by a quarter. In other words, it provides real tax relief and targets it to those families who need it the most. Unlike the plan that President Clinton has proposed, the Dole plan offers broad-based relief and allows all taxpayers--those who are married and those who are single, those with children, those without children--to decide for themselves how they can best use their savings to help themselves and their communities. Maybe they could use the money for new school clothes, as Senator Bennett pointed out, or for books so children can do some extra reading. Maybe they need the money to put a new roof on the house or put savings aside for a downpayment on a home so they, too, could fulfill their dreams to own a home. Maybe someone would use the funds to start a new business or to create new jobs for young people entering the work force. The issue is trust. Do we trust the people enough to decide how to use their own hard-earned income or do we need the Government to decide for us how to spend our money. The Dole plan puts faith in the people and so do I. History shows that when we put our faith in people, the country's economy as a whole does much better. The Senator from Oklahoma pointed out that I frequently quote John F. Kennedy in this regard, and I do. He proposed a tax cut in the early 1960's to help stimulate economic growth, and that plan ultimately led to one of the few periods of relatively strong economic growth in our country since World War II. The economic effects of the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980's were just as dramatic, leading to the longest peacetime economic expansion in the our Nation's history. In fact, by the end of President Reagan's second term in office real gross national product had risen by more than 4 percent a year. Nearly 19 million new jobs were created, more than 85 percent of which were full-time jobs in occupations with average annual salaries of over $20,000. Real median family income grew every year but one between 1982 and 1989, rising $4,564 or 12.64 percent. That is real median income, extra money in people's pockets to help meet their everyday needs. That is what the Reagan program accomplished. By contrast, the high tax policies of the 1990's have had exactly the opposite effect. Real median family income has declined $2,108 or 5.2 percent for the average family. People are caught in the trap of stagnating, declining wages and higher taxes, and they are hurting. No wonder it takes two adults in the family working to support the family. One supports the family; the other supports the Government. I know that some people are asking whether tax cuts are an option today in an era when voters and public officials alike are seeking to balance our Federal budget. Well, John Kennedy also answered that question noting, and I am quoting: An economy hampered with high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget just as it will never produce enough output and enough jobs. The question is not whether we can afford a tax cut. The question is can the American people, many of whom are working two jobs just to make ends meet, afford a Government that continues to take more of their hard-earned income every year? Can the next generation afford the tax burden that will be imposed upon it just to pay the debts our Government is accumulating today? Can we do better for our children than to leave them with a sputtering economy, falling income and rising taxes? The Dole plan is not simply a tax cut but an overall economic plan to revitalize the Nation's economy by putting faith in people to save and invest their hard-earned money in ways they deem best for themselves and their communities. President Clinton has promised that the era of big Government is over. Bob Dole's economic plan will help keep that promise. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I take the time of the Senate today to discuss an issue involving my State that should have been resolved years ago. The Federal Emergency Management Agency--the funding of which we are now discussing--has not given Arizona the same prompt response other States have enjoyed. We have seen FEMA respond to the needs of communities across the country, helping the American people put their lives and property back together after major catastrophes. In Arizona, however, several communities have been living with the damage caused by a flood in early 1993, for which they have yet to receive FEMA's help in restoring significant damage. The areas damaged, and as yet unrepaired, include the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, the town of Kearny, and Romero and Aravaipa Roads in Pinal County, AZ. The Arizona congressional delegation first contacted FEMA Director James Lee Witt in September 1995 to express our concern and dismay about unresolved repair projects from the 1993 Presidential declared disaster. In a meeting last October with Director Witt, he pledged that he would immediately get his staff to work on resolving the outstanding issues that had prevented the completion of the disaster repairs in Arizona. Shortly thereafter, a member of his staff visited Arizona and promised action. There was no discernible progress toward resolution of the problems until March 1996. In March, during another meeting with FEMA's Washington staff, our constituents were dismayed to learn that FEMA had failed to follow through on the commitments made by agency staff during the fall visit to Arizona. It is incomprehensible that FEMA has failed to fulfill its obligation in any of the projects which have been its responsibility since the disaster was declared in early 1993. As a result, the town of Kearny has not yet seen restoration of its airport, a recreational park, or a campground destroyed by the flooding. Delays in constructing a flood control levee have left the town's sewer treatment ponds susceptible to further flood damage and have left the Gila River exposed to the threat of contamination from the ponds. River crossings for Romero and Aravaipa Roads remain unrestored. School children have been forced to cross the Gila River at the Romero Road crossing by walking across a 1,300 foot railroad bridge with frequent train activity and not enough clearance for both the trains and the children. At the Aravaipa crossing, families are required to leave vehicles on both sides of Aravaipa Creek and traverse the crossing by rope in order to commute to their jobs and bring food supplies and other basic staples to their homes when the creek is impassable. Emergency service to both communities are severely hampered by the lack of adequate crossings. Again, this flood damage occurred some 3\1/2\ years ago. Despite a Presidential disaster declaration, these important public facilities remain closed. We understand that there are regulations and requirements governing the restoration of facilities following a disaster. Especially in light of FEMA's recent history, it is imperative that taxpayer funds not be spent unwisely and without justification. However, this is not the issue in these cases. FEMA has simply not given these Arizona projects the attention necessary to get them completed. And when agency personnel have worked on Arizona's projects, they have proven to be more adept at throwing up bureaucratic obstacles than at helping these small communities--as they have helped hundreds of other towns and cities around the country in the 3\1/2\ years since areas of Arizona were flooded. In one instance, FEMA notified the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District in May that its project would be funded, conditioned on the completion of all environmental requirements. Apparently unknown to the FEMA official writing the letter, however, the District had already completed the necessary environmental documentation--to the satisfaction of the Corps of Engineers and with the instrumental participation of FEMA staff. Nonetheless, FEMA officials have spent the months from early May until now trying to decide whether additional environmental work must be done. I was informed this week that FEMA has agreed to complete the environmental work by early November. But given our past experience with FEMA, there is no certainty that the commitment will be kept. This sort of delay and indecision are simply unconscionable, and I would suggest that the distinguished committee chairman would grow very impatient if disaster-stricken areas in his State were treated so irresponsibly by Federal officials charged with their recovery. I would ask that the chairman take note of FEMA's failure to provide even an adequate level of attention to Arizona's disaster-affected communities.

Mr. KYL. In 1993, a flood caused severe damage to four areas of Arizona. They were considered Federal disaster areas. The Arizona congressional delegation met with Director Witt in October of last year. He assured us that FEMA would move promptly to conclude the unresolved issues in Arizona. So to answer the chairman's question, the communities have been living in damaged areas since 1993 and roughly 10 months have elapsed since FEMA recommitted itself to solving the problems quickly.

Mr. KYL. No.

Mr. KYL. I thank the chairman for recognizing the problems in Arizona and for his leadership on this bill.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for making this time available to talk about this important matter this afternoon. I was reminded of the fabler, Stephen Leacock, who wrote the story about the fleas riding on the back of a chariot. They looked back and said, ``My, what a fine cloud of dust we have made.'' It seems to me that Bill Clinton's crowing about the latest GDP figures is analogous. If it were not for the Republican Congress, as Senator Roth just pointed out, ensuring that the budget deficit went down to the extent it did, we would not have these GDP figures that begin to show some promise. As Senator Roth pointed out, if the President had not vetoed the balanced budget we sent up, the figures would be even better. So I don't think this is the time for the President to be crowing. There is another point here, too, Mr. President. We should be very leery of these preliminary statistics. It has been pointed out that the first-quarter GDP figures this year were actually overrated by 21 percent. The correct number was 2.2 percent growth. But they were originally estimated at 2.8 percent. So we need to be a little cautious about bragging too much about the figures before they are verified. Third, as has been pointed out before in this debate, the overall economic performance during the Clinton administration is very poor. It is an annual growth rate of 2.3 percent, compared, for example, with 3.7 percent growth the year before the President took office. If you take the entire decade before he took office, it was 3.2 percent. So the President has very little to crow about with respect to the overall performance of the economy. There is a final and most important point here, though, that I think needs to be addressed. The Senator from Utah, Senator Bennett, made the point a moment ago. It has to do with the plight of the average American. We can quote these GDP statistics all we want. But what about the average American family? How does all of this affect them? The fact of the matter is that the average American family is not doing so good. The news there is not good. Households have lost, not gained, $2,100 in take-home pay during the 1990's. That is a 5-percent decline. If you look at the 1980's, families increased their income by 11 percent, or $4,100. That was the increase in median family income during the 1980's, mostly the Reagan decade, but the first part of the Bush administration as well. If you look at the Clinton decade, the 1990's, median household income has actually dropped $2,100. So it is fine for the GDP to be finally showing some strength, but in terms of the average American family, it has not yet translated into a benefit to them. In the 1990's, by the way, it is the rich who have been gaining, to the extent that there is any gain, and not the middle- and lower-income workers. Consumer debt has hit an all-time high of just over $1 trillion--a 44-percent increase during the Clinton years. Personal bankruptcies were at an all-time high last year. Why is this? Because of the Clinton crunch, Mr. President, and the historically high tax rates. Americans today are paying the highest percentage of taxes in the peacetime history of the Nation--38.2 percent. I think it bears repeating that this is the highest percentage of their income that Americans have paid in taxes during peacetime in this country's history. That is the Clinton crunch. That is why the GDP statistics, as good as they may be, are not being translated into benefit for the average American family. The stagnation of wages and incomes and the economic anxiety people feel is the result of three things--the weak performance of the economy under President Clinton, high taxes, and the burdensome regulation of the Clinton administration. These are what have hindered people's ability to get ahead. Just a month ago, on July 4, we celebrated Independence Day in this country. I would note that July 3 is also ``independence day'' for the people in this country, because, until July 3, Americans literally had been working for the Government. In other words, if they had applied all of their income to taxes, it would not have been until July 3 that they would have fulfilled all of their tax obligations. From then on, they began working for themselves. So it is really the Clinton crunch that has caused so many problems for American families. Until we can (a) get the economy moving again, and (b) reduce this burden of regulation and taxation on the American people, these generalized statistics are not going to translate into any real benefit for the average American family.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of this legislation, H.R. 3215, to repeal the Trading with Indians Act. I would note that the Senate has twice approved measures to repeal this 19th century law--in November 1993, and again last October as part of a bill making technical corrections in Indian laws. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, John McCain, who joined me in sponsoring the Senate companion bill, S. 199, and who encouraged his committee to incorporate it into last year's technical corrections measure. I also want to commend Congressman J.D. Hayworth for championing the legislation in the House on behalf of his native American constituents. Without his active support, it is safe to say that the House would not have acted on the measure this year. When the Trading with Indians Act was enacted in 1834, it had a very legitimate purpose: to protect native Americans from being unduly influenced by Federal employees. But, a law that started out with good intentions more than a century ago has become unnecessary, and even counterproductive, today. It established an absolute prohibition against commercial trading with Indians by employees of the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The problem is that the prohibition does not merely apply to employees, but to family members as well. It extends to transactions in which a Federal employee has an interest, either in his or her own name, or in the name of another person, including a spouse, where the employee benefits or appears to benefit from such interest. The penalties for violations can be severe: a fine of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 6 months, or both. The act further provides that any employee who is found to be in violation should be terminated from Federal employment. This all means that employees could be subject to criminal penalties or fired from their jobs, not for any real or perceived wrongdoing on their part, but merely because they are married to individuals who do business on an Indian reservation. The nexus of marriage is enough to invoke penalties. It means, for example, that an Indian Health Service employee whose spouse operates a small business on a reservation could be fined, imprisoned, or fired. It means that a family member could not apply for a small business loan without jeopardizing the employee's job. The legislation before us today will correct that injustice without subjecting native Americans to the kind of abuse that prompted enactment of the law 160 years ago. The protection that the Trading with Indians Act originally offered can now be provided under the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Government Employees. The intent here is to provide adequate safeguards against conflicts of interest, while not unreasonably denying individuals and their families the ability to live and work--and create jobs--in their communities. Both Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and Interior Department Assistant Secretary Ada Deer have expressed support for the legislation to repeal the 1834 act. Secretary Shalala, in a letter dated November 17, 1993, noted that repeal could improve the ability of IHS to recruit and retain medical professional employees in remote locations. It is more difficult for IHS to recruit and retain medical professionals to work in remote reservation facilities if their spouses are prohibited from engaging in business activities with the local Indian residents, particularly since employment opportunities for spouses are often very limited in these locations. Let me cite one very specific case in which the law has come into play. The case, which surfaced a couple of years ago, involved Ms. Karen Arviso, who served as the Navajo area IHS health promotion and disease prevention coordinator. Ms. Arviso was one of those people who played a particularly critical role during the outbreak of the hantavirus in the Navajo area at the time. She put in long hours traveling to communities across the reservation in an effort to educate people about this mysterious disease. Instead of thanks for her dedication and hard work, Ms. Arviso received a notice that she was to be fired because her husband applied for a small business loan from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Trading with Indians Act would require it. What sense does that make? Mr. President, repeal of the Trading with Indians Act is long overdue. I urge the Senate to pass this legislation again today, and finally send it on to the President for his signature.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to offer an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for assistance to Ukraine. Ukraine's achievement this year in the areas of ethnic stability, human rights and constitutional reform are significant, and fully justify the substantial earmark of aid being proposed. My proposal will not change the total amount of the appropriation, but it will provide assurance that appropriated funds will be used in the interest of both the United States and Ukraine. I believe that the best forms of foreign aid are those which strengthen the recipient from within and lead toward self sufficiency and, ultimately, independence from any assistance from the United States or other foreign sources. In this spirit, I propose this earmark in the amount of $25 million for the purpose of helping to create a complete, modern system of commercial law in Ukraine, including not only substantive laws which are compatible with international standards but also training and equipping of an independent judiciary and legal profession, which as we know are the cornerstones of law-based economy. Such a fundamental transformation--from a totalitarian command economy to a self-sustaining free market--cannot be achieved without substantial technical assistance. Until now, assistance for comprehensive commercial law reform has been provided to Ukraine largely through pro bono publico, through a commendable program of donated aid known as the Commercial Law Project for Ukraine. These private efforts, no matter how praiseworthy, are inadequate to bring about the fundamental reforms which are so urgently needed, the earmark which I propose would fill that need and bring the goal of economic self-sufficiency for Ukraine closer to a reality. The philosopher John Locke wrote, ``Where law ends, tyranny begins.'' It is also true that, where law begins, tyranny ends. In this spirit, I propose an earmark for legal and commercial law restructuring in Ukraine. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record three letters in support of this amendment from Yuri Shcherbak, Ambassador of Ukraine, Orest A. Jejna, President of the Ukrainian American Bar Association, Askold Lozynskyj, President of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.