Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. That is correct.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this amendment may sound a little strange at first because it actually reduces funding for an Arizona project, but this is important to do. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to reduce funding for the central Arizona project (CAP) by $13,402,300. The amendment would bring the bill's fiscal year 1997 appropriation for CAP to $58,325,700. That would represent a cut of about 19 percent in this project, and about a 3.2-percent reduction from the total Bureau of Reclamation construction budget. Mr. President, I want to begin by commending the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Senator Pete Domenici, for his work on this bill and for his unwavering support of the CAP, a project that provides central and southern Arizona with its lifeblood-- water. The amendment I am offering today is the result of information received since the subcommittee took action on the energy and water bill a few weeks ago. Had the chairman been aware of the information at that time, I believe the funding levels in the bill would have been adjusted accordingly. In any event, it is appropriate that we adjust the figures now to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of hard-earned tax dollars. The House of Representatives has already approved a similar amendment, which was offered with the unanimous support of Arizona's House delegation, during floor action in that body on July 24. My amendment differs somewhat from the House measure because of a difference of opinion between the Bureau and staff about how certain funds are accounted for. Although my amendment uses the more conservative numbers provided by the Bureau, the savings could rise depending upon how that dispute is resolved. If more could be saved, I would hope the conference committee would adopt that higher amount of savings. Mr. President, I want to give credit to the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, the local sponsor of the CAP, for helping to identify savings that could be achieved, and I want to specifically list those savings here: Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct: Siphon repairs, $1,616,000; Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct: Other repairs, $1,509,000; Modified Roosevelt Dam: Noncontract costs, $214,000; Other project costs: Water allocations--noncontract costs, $500,000; OPC O&M during construction, $350,000; Curation facilities, $400,000; Native fish protection, $2,775,000; Native fish protection--noncontract costs, $332,000; Environmental Enhancement: Major contracts, $1,100,000 Noncontract costs, $801,300; New Waddell Dam: New recreation enhancement contracts, $1,550,000; and Noncontract costs, $2,255,000. Total reduction in fiscal year 1997 CAP budget--$13,402,300. Included in these reductions, for example, is $1.5 million that was in the Bureau's budget request for Reach 11 dike repairs. But our information is that the Bureau has already completed such repairs and has no need for more money related to those repairs. Another $1.6 million relates to repair and replacement of siphons, but the Bureau has refused to complete the remaining siphon repairs. I want to make clear that nothing in my amendment is intended to hamper work on Indian distribution systems. Funding for work related to this activity is contained in a separate line item within the CAP budget that is left untouched by the amendment. I fully intend that these projects go forward as we have promised. Any effort by the Bureau to reprogram moneys set aside for such contracts would require the approval of the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development. Such approval is highly unlikely. If there are any activities that are adversely affected and proponents can justify why they should legitimately be supported through the CAP budget, I know the Arizona delegation would be glad to revisit the issue next year. Until then, however, I believe it is appropriate for the Senate to accept the savings being proposed today. Mr. President, we have a unique opportunity today to save taxpayers some money without harming ongoing activities that are vital to the CAP. I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. If the Senator from Georgia will yield for a moment, the point here is not to extract an apology for the sake of an apology, but rather, I think, to make a larger point. Clearly, when the Speaker of the House is vilified the way he was without good reason, and we know now incorrectly if not with animus, he is owed an apology. But the point of these attacks was to try to distract attention away from the specific charge and the problem that was being alluded to by the Speaker. That is where I think these people owe an apology to the American public, because they were trying to divert attention away from a condition, a problem, and it is very much like the way the administration has treated this drug war from the very beginning. It is basically a nonwar, and that is why drug use has gone up during this administration's tenure. They have to focus back on the fact that what they say matters. The way the President acts matters a great deal, especially to the young people in this country. He is the first really young new-generation President here. As a result, I think young people really look to President Clinton because he is younger than most of the Presidents have been in recent years. When they see him act in a relatively cavalier way, then they are going to pick up on that. That appears to be what is happening, if you look at the statistics. So again, while it is important to apologize to the Speaker, because what they said about him was extraordinarily unfair and inaccurate, I think it is more important, again, that they get back on track in fighting the war on drugs by apologizing to the country as a whole for trying to distract attention from the problem in the White House, trying to distract attention from what was going on here in their inadequate effort to fight the war on drugs and refocus attention on the very, very difficult nature of this problem. President Clinton has an extraordinarily great ability to be persuasive, to demonstrate that he cares about things. And if he were to mount the podium with the same sincerity that Nancy Reagan and Ronald Reagan did and George and Barbara Bush to tell the young people of today why it is so destructive for them to begin this path of doing drugs, I think he could be enormously helpful. He could be so powerful in his appeal and reach to these young people. So instead of obfuscating the issue and accusing others of making too big a deal out of it, as they did with Speaker Gingrich, I think they ought to try to focus on what they can do to help. It would be a tremendous benefit if they would do that. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for organizing this time to speak about this incredibly important issue. While we do not intend this to be an issue that is partisan in nature, as the Senator from Utah, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has just pointed out, although this is clearly a bipartisan effort, or should be, it is impossible to deal with the issue without, I think, criticizing some of the people who have been unable thus far, or unwilling, to fight this war on drugs, to level that criticism as a way of pointing out what needs to change. I would not be so willing to do this if President Clinton had not made this a partisan political issue in the first place. That is what angers me so much. We just saw the Senator from Utah, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, point out that from 1980 to the end of 1992, during the time of Republican administrations, drug use on all fronts had declined dramatically. In the Presidential campaign of 1992, here is what then-candidate Bill Clinton had to say: [President Bush] hasn't fought a real war on crime and drugs. I will. Maybe if he had not said that, maybe if he had not made that promise, I would not be so critical of him today for failing to keep that promise. But as the chart that Senator Hatch just showed us reveals, from the time that President Clinton took office, drug use among young people in all of the categories increased. So you saw during the entire time of the Reagan and Bush administrations drug use going down and then, when President Clinton took office, drug use sharply going up. That is why it angers me to go back and see statements like this during the campaign 4 years ago, when he criticized President Bush for not being tough on drugs, and said he would fight the war on drugs. He has not done it and that is why we are critical here today. It is not to try to throw barbs at the President, but to try to get him on board on this issue, because this is critical for the future of the United States and for our kids. Specifically, when usage of hard drugs among White House personnel was finally revealed in the media, after having been denied by Presidential spokesmen, we get the kind of reaction that Senator Hatch just pointed out, coming from the White House, that suggested that using drugs is no big deal. It was Leon Panetta 2 years ago who attacked House Speaker Newt Gingrich for his comment that the delay in the White House granting clearance to a large group of staffers might be in part due to drug use by some of the staffers. That was the information people had at the time, but it was not then confirmed. Here is what Leon Panetta said: We cannot do business here with a Speaker of the House who is going to engage in these kind of unfounded allegations. The people at the White House at that time knew those were not unfounded allegations. Now, 2 years later, the news accounts report that in fact at least a dozen staffers were taken on board, over the objection of the FBI and Secret Service because of their hard core drug use. Now what do the spin meisters at the White House talk about? Of course they are no longer unfounded accusations. Now it is just the excuse that, well, everyone was doing it. Press Secretary Mike McCurry: I was a kid in the 1970's. You know, did I smoke a joint from time to time? Of course, I did. And the FBI knows that, and that was in my background file. The ``of course, I did'' is what bothers so many of us. The White House is the ultimate bully pulpit in the United States. The tone set there permeates our entire culture. Our young people look to the President for his leadership on issues, to set an example, to be a role model. When his chief spokesman tosses off his drug use with a mere cavalier ``of course, I did,'' inferring that everybody did, that suggests it is behavior that is acceptable. It is against the law and it is not acceptable behavior. So, when the people at the highest levels in the White House treat the issue so cavalierly, is it no wonder the young people in our country, who are obviously susceptible to this kind of language, treat it cavalierly as well? Yet this is the same White House that is blasting Senator Dole for his comments that not necessarily everyone is addicted to tobacco use. It seems to me there is a gross double standard here, at a minimum. But that at maximum, one might say, more important, for the young people in our country this administration has squandered the assets that had been brought to bear in the war on drugs, had squandered the success of the Bush and Reagan administrations when drug use was brought substantially down. Senator Hatch has pointed out many of the things that have occurred during this administration, like the drug czar's office staff being cut more than 80 percent. After a year of leaving the drug czar's office vacant, finally the President selected Lee Brown, who was only in office for a few months. His major initiative was to have ``Big League Chew'' bubble-gum removed from convenience store chains. It did not do much to fight the war on drugs. Then he appointed as our Nation's top health official Joycelyn Elders, who said ``[I] do feel we would markedly reduce our crime rate if drugs were legalized.'' In one sense I suppose if you remove all prohibitions on illegal activity, you reduce the illegal drug use rate, at least measured against what it was during the war on drugs, but that is obviously not the way to protect the future of America's children. Particularly since we understand that the use of drugs such as marijuana leads to the use of much harder drugs. That is why the President's reduction in requests for funding from interdiction to law enforcement have not been welcomed by the Congress, and why the Congress has wanted to fund those programs at a higher level. Just summarizing what Senator Hatch said a moment ago, with the reduction in the officers from FBI, INS, Customs Service and Coast Guard, they would have lost 621 drug enforcement agents had the Congress not put the funding back in. And he mentioned the fact we did not train special agents of the DEA in 1993. But when the Congress has finally insisted on increasing the drug interdiction effort, for example in the bill we just dealt with last week, we get emphasis-- indications from the White House that they will support those increases. I hope that is true. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Attorney General, Janet Reno, ``announced that she wanted to reduce the mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking * * *.'' Statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reveal that, although drug use is going up, the number of individuals prosecuted for Federal drug violations is going down. That is what we have to change. This de facto strategy of the administration in fighting drugs was to deemphasize interdiction, law enforcement and prevention and concentrate on treatment. Yet, as has been pointed out, treatment is not the answer to this problem. It is only one small piece of the puzzle. And a 1994 study by the Rand Corp. found that 27 percent of hardcore drug users continued hardcore use while undergoing treatment. And fully 88 percent of them returned to hardcore drug use after treatment. So the recidivism rate was very, very high. Let me just hesitate here to make a point. In criticizing the administration's efforts here, again I do not intend to be partisan. There have been a lot of Democrats who have been equally critical. Senator Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said: This President is silent on the matter. He has failed to speak. Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York whose district has a very serious problem in this regard said: I've been in Congress for over two decades and I have never, never, never seen a President who cares less about this issue. So I am not just speaking from the perspective of a Republican, Mr. President. I am speaking as someone who cares about our future and who has noted it is people on both sides of the aisle who are deeply committed to fighting this war who are also critical of this administration. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee pointed out that marijuana use is up; that one in three high school seniors now uses marijuana. That is an astounding statistic. Why is it important? Because, as I said a moment ago, according to surveys by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 12- to 17-year-olds who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to graduate to cocaine than those who don't use marijuana. So those who argue that marijuana use, so-called ``soft drugs,'' are not important are ignoring scientific evidence that almost all of the people who use those kinds of drugs graduate to harder drugs. That is why it is so important to stop this drug use at that level. What can we do to recapture the initiative on this war on drugs? First of all, on interdiction, the action we just took last week, we have to see renewed efforts by Federal agencies responsible for fighting drugs to spend greater resources, identifying the sources, methods and individuals involved in trafficking. Enforcement I mentioned a moment ago. Drug prosecution under this administration has decreased. Those violating our drug laws must be prosecuted, and we have to make sure those who are profiting from the drug trade are severely punished. Finally, education and prevention. Kids need to learn and be constantly reminded that drugs are harmful, and that is where the President's bully pulpit comes in. They laughed at President Reagan and his wife when they said that we should ``just say no.'' I think they were making a big mistake. We know the President has to say no. Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds more from the Senator from Georgia, since I know my time has expired.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am so glad that the Senator from Georgia has asked that question, because now that this has been reported on in the media 2 years after the fact and some people from the White House have, apparently, acknowledged that there is truth to these allegations, I think that every one of the people who smeared House Speaker Newt Gingrich not only owe him an apology--and it should be a very direct and specific apology--for the comments that the Senator from Georgia just read, but they owe an apology to the American people, because they, in smearing him, suggested that he was lying, that he was not telling the truth, that the allegations were unfounded, when, in fact, they either knew or should have known what was going on in the White House, why those clearances had not been granted. Therefore, it is they who were misleading the American public by suggesting that what he said was untrue. So I have been wondering for some time when we would receive an apology, and I think it is as important that the House Speaker receive an apology. I happened to see the Sunday morning talk show when Speaker Gingrich said what he said. I saw him say it, and I thought at the time, ``Boy, he was certainly careful how he repeated that allegation because it was all over the news media.'' He was very careful in saying, ``Now, I'm not making allegations, this is what a high-ranking official told me, and if it is true, it's very bad.'' Well, all of the qualifications went out the window when all the White House pack dogs immediately attacked him the next day suggesting he was the one who was some kind of wild accuser here. That is why I think the Senator from Georgia hits the nail right on the head when he suggests that each one of these people owes the Speaker a very specific apology. And if I can go further and suggest they should apologize for misleading the American people as well.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate that. That will enable me to make this final point. We are doing our part in Congress to revitalize this war on drugs. We just passed the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill, which will improve our enforcement and interdiction efforts. It increases the funding substantially. I think, however, once we have done this, the President is going to have to help us regain the initiative by demonstrating that the administration is just as concerned about this effort as is the Congress. Of course, another option is to elect a President who really seems to care about this effort. But that is another matter. Let me say in conclusion, this effort should be bipartisan. It has to be coordinated. The President and the Congress have to join in the effort, and we have to convince the younger people in our country that the trend of drug use that is now going up must be reversed if their future is going to be great and if the future of America is going to be great, because all Americans bear the cost of drug abuse through increased crime and increased taxes to pay for welfare and other social programs and all the other costs to society that can't be measured. It is time to resume the drug war. America's future is at stake. I commend the Senator from Georgia for taking this time so we can emphasize the issue and get on with this important effort.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, given the poor record of the Clinton administration on drug enforcement it ought to be enough to simply note that this amendment is needed to bring funding up to the level requested by President Clinton. In an Investors Business Daily article recently, they began by saying: In the war on drugs, a bipartisan chorus of critics charges that President Clinton has been AWOL--absent without leadership. They quote Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, who says: I have never, never, never seen a President who cares less about this issue. Representative Maxine Waters a Democrat from California says, ``There is no war on drugs.'' The article goes on to note that President Clinton cut the Drug Enforcement Agency by 227 agents; that he issued an Executive order reducing military interdiction efforts, including the elimination of 1,000 antidrug positions; that he shortened mandatory minimum sentences for drug traffickers; that he tried to slash the staff of the Office of National Drug Control Policy by 80 percent, to only 25 people down from 146; and that in his 1995 budget he proposed cutting funds for the Customs Service, the DEA, Federal Bureau of Investigation, INS, and Coast Guard, all of which would result in fewer agents for drug interdiction. The point here is if the administration has requested the additional amount of money, surely the Congress ought to support it, given the fact that the administration has not exactly been a stalwart supporter of the drug interdiction efforts. Certainly no one cares more about kids than the Senator from Kansas does. There is simply a difference of opinion of how to proceed here. She makes the point this is significantly more funding than last year, and that's right and that's the point. Under President Bush, the funding was going up. Under President Clinton, the funding has gone down precipitously. We need to begin to restore that funding so that we will have an adequate effort in regard to this interdiction effort. That is why we should support the amendment of the Senator from Georgia. The funding in this effort needs to be increased. As Senator Grassley said, this is something we have to do for the kids.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, since President Johnson declared his War on Poverty, the Federal Government, under federally designed programs, has spent more than $5 trillion on welfare programs. But, during this time, the poverty rate has increased from 14.7 to 15.3 percent. After trillions of dollars spent on welfare over the past 30 years, we are still dealing with a system that hurts children, rather than helps them. The current system discourages work, penalizes marriage, and destroys personal responsibility and, oftentimes, self-worth. According to the Public Agenda Foundation, 64 percent of welfare recipients agree that ``welfare encourages teenagers to have children out of wedlock,'' and 62 percent agree that it ``undermines the work ethic.'' And, there are serious negative consequences when a child is born out-of-wedlock. Children born out-of-wedlock have a substantially higher risk of being born at a very low or moderately low birth weight. Children born out of wedlock are more likely to experience low verbal cognitive attainment, as well as more child abuse, and neglect. Children born out of wedlock are more likely to have lower cognitive scores, lower educational aspirations, and a greater likelihood of becoming teenage parents themselves. Children born out of wedlock are three times more likely to be on welfare when they grow up. Who would not be full of despair and without hope for the future when presented with such a scenario? S. 1956 seeks to change this by allowing States to design programs that counter these trends, and to change general welfare policy so that it promotes work and marriage. State Block Grants S. 1956 replaces the current AFDC and related child care programs with a general block grant and a child care block grant. Limited success in reforming welfare has occurred when States and localities have been given the opportunity to go their own way. In Wisconsin, for example--and we all know that Wisconsin is waiting for approval of a waiver to continue to reform its welfare system--a successful program there diverts individuals from ever getting on welfare. Under a local initiative in the city of Riverside, CA, individuals on welfare are staying in jobs permanently. In both Wisconsin and Riverside, welfare rolls have been reduced. Arizona is a good example of why reform is still needed. Arizona applied in July 1994 to implement a new State welfare program, EMPOWER, based on work, responsibility, and accountability. It took the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services bureaucracy a full year to approve the waiver. A shift to block grants to States make sense. By allowing States to design their own programs, decisions will be more localized, and the costs of the Federal bureaucracy will be reduced. NonWork and Illegitimacy It must be emphasized over and over that there are two fundamental driving forces behind welfare dependency that must be addressed in any welfare reform bill: nonwork and nonmarriage. Nonwork and illegitimacy are key underlying causes of our welfare crisis and, even with the effective elimination of the Federal welfare bureaucracy, they will remain as its legacy if we choose not to address them. People will never get out of the dependency cycle if federal funds reinforce destructive behavior. NonWork Let us deal with the facts: To escape poverty and get off welfare, able-bodied individuals must enter and stay in the workforce. As Teddy Roosevelt said, ``The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight.'' Another fact: The JOBS program that passed as a part of the Family Support Act of 1988 moves a far too small number of welfare recipients into employment. Less than 10 percent of welfare recipients now participate in the JOBS program. In order to receive all of their block grant funding, under S. 1956, States will be required to move toward what should be their primary goal: self-sufficiency among all their citizens. S. 1956 requires that 50 percent of a caseload be engaged in work by the year 2002. There are work components of this bill that could be strengthened but it provides a good beginning toward these goals. In addition, under S. 1956 welfare recipients must be engaged in work no later than 2 years after receiving their first welfare payment. States must also lower welfare benefits on a pro rata basis for individuals who fail to show up for required work. Illegitimacy Our Nation's illegitimacy rate has increased from 10.7 percent in 1970 to nearly 30 percent in 1991. Eighty-nine percent of children receiving AFDC benefits now live in homes in which no father is present. It must be reemphasized what role the breakdown of the family has played in our societal and cultural decline. This is not really even a debatable point. The facts support a devastating reality. According to a 1995 U.S. Census Bureau report, the one-parent family is six times more likely to live in poverty than the two-parent family. S. 1956 provides measures to combat illegitimacy, including providing an incentive fund for states to reduce illegitimacy rates. In addition, Federal funds under the block grants, unless a State opts out, may not be used to provide additional assistance for mothers having additional children while on welfare. If the rules of welfare are stated clearly to a mother in the beginning, and if allowances are made for noncash essentials like diapers and other items, then such an approach is fair. If such a rule reduces out-of-wedlock births, it may turn out to be more fair than most other aspects of welfare. Mr. President, the Congress has passed welfare reform two other times, and twice the President has vetoed the legislation. There is an urgency to the task at hand. Children's lives are being compromised--it is time to work toward a system that is recognized for the number of children that never need to be on welfare, rather than the number of children who are brought into the failed welfare state. The Senate should pass S. 1956.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss an issue of great importance to the State of Arizona and the Nation. As you may know, Arizona is home to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the Nation's largest nuclear power plant. Palo Verde's three 1,270 megawatt pressurized water reactors serve more than 4 million customers in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. This facility is not only effective and efficient for customers in those States; it serves as an example for other plants across the country. In 1987, Palo Verde was selected to receive the Outstanding Engineering Achievement Award, the Nation's highest engineering honor from the National Society of Professional Engineers and in 1995, received an INPO 1 rating--the highest rating for excellence by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. I am also pleased to announce that just last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its ``Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance,'' or SALP report, for Palo Verde. In three categories--operations, maintenance and engineering--Palo Verde received a Category 1 rating, reflecting superior safety performance. Let me quote the NRC in a July 5 letter to Arizona Public Service, Palo Verde's operator: ``It is clear that Arizona Public Service has established the programs and processes necessary to achieve and sustain superior performance. Management attention is evident at all levels.'' I commend Palo Verde for its outstanding performance. These are achievements to be proud of. Palo Verde also deserves awards for its low impact on the environment. Because it uses uranium as fuel, Palo Verde has saved the earth 51 million tons of coal; 12 million barrels of oil; and 272 billion cubic feet of natural gas. By avoiding fossil fuels, Palo Verde avoided disseminating 2 million tons of sulfur oxide, also known as acid rain, 40 million tons of carbon dioxide, and 700 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides. In addition, Palo Verde contributes to the local environment in Phoenix by recycling 40,000 gallons of municipal effluent per minute. All of these benefits do not come without some cost, of course. Palo Verde, like nuclear plants all over the world, produces high-level radioactive waste, in the form of spent fuel rods, that must be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. Currently, these rods are stored on-site, in cooling ponds. This storage, as is the case at so many other plants, was designed to be temporary. Palo Verde cannot accommodate all the spent fuel that it will produce in its lifetime. Palo Verde, and other nuclear plants across the country, relied on the commitment by the United States Government to begin taking spent fuel by 1998. By that year, 26 U.S. reactors will exhaust existing spent fuel storage capacity. Fuel managers at Palo Verde estimate that the three reactors will lose the ability to discharge the entirety of their cores in 2004. For years, we have debated what to do with the spent fuel rods from commercial reactors as well as high-level defense waste. In 1982, Congress made a commitment to the American people to take the waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act laid the groundwork to develop storage and disposal facilities for commercial and defense waste. Under this legislation, the Department of Energy has an obligation to provide safe, centralized storage for the Nation's spent fuel. In return, electricity consumers would finance this program by paying a few additional cents on their monthly electric bills, the so-called 1 mill per kilowatt charge. Since 1982, electricity consumers have paid billions of dollars into the nuclear waste fund. Including interest, their contributions come to over $11 billion. Consumers in the southwestern states served by Palo Verde have paid in over $175 million. Unfortunately, significant progress toward long-term storage has not been made. Although characterization and viability assessments are underway at Yucca Mountain, NV, the proposed site of the permanent repository, the Federal Government is not now ready to accept high level waste. And absent extraordinary actions by DOE, it will not be ready any time soon--certainly not by the 1998 deadline. DOE has already conceded that the permanent repository could not possibly be ready before 2010. Compounding the problem, DOE has not even begun the basic planning required for an interim facility. Failing to meet the deadline in 1998 is deplorable but it seems it is unavoidable. The consequences for some utilities could be devastating. Some could be forced to shut down. If those 23 plants that run out of storage space in 3 years were to shut down, America would lose enough power for nearly 11 million people--power that doesn't result in air pollution. Another option for plants would be for these utilities to build additional on-site storage. This would cost tens of millions of dollars--money that would come from the pocketbooks of electricity customers. Those same consumers who have already paid so many billions of dollars to the Government for spent fuel storage would be forced to pay twice for the same service. Officials at Palo Verde estimate that their initial capital costs and licensing for new on-site storage would be in the neighborhood of $20 million with annual monitoring expenditures of about $10 million. To remedy this inequity, along with several other Senators, including Senators Craig and Murkowski, I introduced S. 1271, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1995. This bill proposes an interim storage facility at the Nevada Test Site near Yucca Mountain and would enable the Government to meet its obligation to begin accepting spent fuel and defense waste in 1998. This bill passed out of the Energy Committee in March of this year. Just last week, Senators Craig and Murkowski introduced S. 1936, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996, in an attempt to address a number of concerns that had been expressed with respect to S. 1271. The new bill was also drafted to broaden the bipartisan support for this important legislation. I am pleased to co-sponsor this new legislation. The bill has been successful in gaining bipartisan support, as evidenced by the cloture vote of 65 to 34 on July 16. I believe that the changes made are reasonable and will go a long way toward reaching agreement with the House bill. Just as important, Senator Bennett Johnston, the ranking member on the Energy Committee, has agreed to cosponsor S. 1936 and has sent a letter to the White House, urging the President to reconsider his previous veto statement. As Senator Johnston points out in his July 11 letter to President Clinton: Nuclear waste has never been a partisan issue. While the current law was signed by a Republican president, it has its roots in the Carter administration. It was passed by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and amended by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, with broad bipartisan support. It would be a terrible, terrible mistake to make it a partisan issue now. Continuing in this bipartisan tradition is S. 1936, which amends the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Introduced July 9 by Senators Larry Craig and Frank Murkowski, it retains the fundamental principles of S. 1271, which passed Energy Committee in March. S. 1936 would develop an integrated management system for used nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and for high-level radioactive materials from defense activities, all of which is now stored in 41 States. Central Interim Storage Under S. 1936, construction of an interim facility could begin December 31, 1998. If the President determines by that date that Yucca Mountain is not a suitable site for a permanent repository, an alternate interim storage site may be chosen. An alternate storage site must be selected by the President by June 30, 2000, and Congress must approve construction at that alternate site by December 31, 2000. If those milestones are not met, an interim storage facility will be built at the Nevada Test Site. This provision is significant because it ensures that the construction of an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site will not occur before the President and Congress have had an ample opportunity to review the technical assessment of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a permanent repository and to designate an alternative site for interim storage based upon that technical information. This provision of S. 1936, in effect, de-links permanent and interim storage. This linkage was a criticism of S. 1271 which would have allowed construction of an interim storage facility on October 1, 1998. S. 1936 provides time to determine if Yucca Mountain is a viable site for a permanent repository before building an interim site in Nevada. If it is not, S. 1936, again, provides the option for finding an alternate interim storage site. Ratepayer Funding of the Waste Disposal Program S. 1936 ensures that funds are available for the program when needed. The bill continues electricity customers' payments into the Waste Fund at the rate of 1 mill per kilowatt-hour, or about $600 million per year, until September 30, 2020. After that date, the program will be funded by a user fee, which will be capped at 1 mill. The bill also requires that all one-time fees owed by utilities for spent fuel generated before 1983 be paid by September 30, 2020 and imposes a penalty on utilities that fail to pay the one-time fee. In S. 1271, the 1 mill fee would have continued indefinitely. One-time fees would have been paid when DOE fulfilled its contractual obligation to begin taking waste in 1998. S. 1936 ensures that electricity customers' deposits of about $12 billion to the Federal Nuclear Waste Fund are made available as needed for the nuclear waste management program, and that the monies are spent for their intended purpose. Both bills assure continued funding for the nuclear waste management program. S. 1936 resolves budget issues relating to ``PAY-GO'' and assures that funds are made available to the program, and not used to offset the budget deficit. Interim Storage Capacity Both bills establish a two phase approach for acceptance of waste at the central facility to encourage timely completion of the permanent repository, without burdening nuclear power plants, many of which are rapidly running out of on-site storage capacity. Under S. 1936, spent fuel acceptance in Phase I would begin November 30, 1999, and the facility capacity would be capped at 15,000 metric tons. Phase I under S. 1271 would have begun on the same date, with a 20,000 MTU capacity. Under S. 1936, Phase II begins by December 2, 2002. The storage capacity would increase to 40,000 MTU. However, a provision in S. 1936 would increase the capacity cap to 60,000 MTU if DOE fails to complete the Yucca Mountain viability assessment by June 30, 1998, or if it fails to submit a repository license application by February 1, 2002, or it fails to begin repository operation by January 17, 2010. Phase II in S. 1271 would have also begun by December 31, 2002, but with a 100,000 MTU capacity. S. 1936 provides storage capacity through 2019 and maintains pressure to complete construction of a repository by 2010. Transportation Like S. 1271, S. 1936 designated Caliente, NV, as an intermodal transfer point and provides for heavy haul truck transfer to the Nevada Test Site. S. 1936 clarifies that transporting spent nuclear fuel will be governed by all Federal, State, and local requirements to the same extent as anyone engaging in interstate transportation. S. 1936 also contains more stringent requirements for promulgating employee safety rules, provides greater detail in transportation requirements, and provides training for workers in all phases of the integrated waste management system and emergency response personnel. National Environmental Policy Act and Preemption S. 1936 requires that DOE conduct an environmental impact statement for licensing both the interim spent fuel storage facility and the permanent repository. Environmental reviews are also required for the intermodal transfer facility. S. 1936, far from overriding all State and local laws, actually expands jurisdiction of all applicable Federal, State, and local and tribal laws. The only time Federal law would override, or preempt, State or local law is when these are patently unreasonable as would be the case if a State passed a law declaring illegal the passage of nuclear waste through it. Such laws as this, which would be an insuperable obstacle to carrying our S. 1936, would be preempted. This is in contrast to S. 1271, which said the storage facility would be governed solely by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Atomic Energy Act, and the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, to the exclusion of all laws below the Federal level. S. 1936 takes into account an expanded universe of Federal, State, and local and tribal laws, while ensuring that the program is not obstructed. Local Relations S. 1936 restores financial assistance to Nevada's local governments and to tribes, and it provides land transfers to Nye and Lincoln Counties, and the city of Caliente. The bill's affected areas see the land transfer provision as attractive, since the vast majority of Nevada land is government owned. S. 1936 provides equitable treatment for Nevada's local governments and tribes. Transportation The Federal Government must plan today to ensure its ability to transport spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants to a central storage facility beginning in 1999. The Energy Department is responsible for transporting spent nuclear fuel to a central storage facility and repository. S. 1936 instructs DOE to use private contractors to the fullest extent possible in each aspect of the transportation network. Spent fuel must be transported from nuclear power plants to an interim storage facility in containers certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DOE selects transportation routes for spent fuel shipments to Nevada, and the agency must notify States along the transportation routes in advance of spent fuel shipments. As mentioned, the containers would be transferred at an intermodal facility at Caliente, NV and shipped by heavy haul truck over the final 120 miles to the central storage facility. The bill also provides technical assistance to States, local governments and Indian tribes for training in procedures required for routine transportation and in emergency response. The transportation provisions in S. 1936 are consistent with preemption authority found in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Amounts to be Shipped Radioactive materials currently account for about 3 percent of the 100 million packages of hazardous materials shipped each year in the United States. Of those 3 million radioactive packages, fewer than 100 contain high-level radioactive waste. The number of spent fuel shipments will increase to about 300 to 500 per year by the turn of the century, when the DOE is expected to begin accepting high-level radioactive waste at a central storage facility. Even then, high-level radioactive waste will comprise a small percentage of all hazardous material shipments. During the past 30 years, the commercial nuclear industry has built a solid safety record during more than 2,400 shipments of spent fuel over U.S. highways and railroads. During this time, no fatalities, injuries or environmental damage have been caused by the radioactive nature of the cargo. Spent nuclear fuel is placed in dry, rugged containers for shipment. These specially designed containers--certified by the NRC-- use heavy steel-walled technology to safely confine radioactive materials. Because of the strict controls by DOE, NRC and other State and Federal agencies, utilities and other U.S. companies have a long history of safe spent fuel transportation. Spent fuel has been shipped from temporary storage facilities at West Valley, NY and Morris, IL, back to utilities; from the Three Mile Island plant to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; and from the Hope Creek nuclear power plant in New Jersey to a General Electric facility in California. Designation of Transportation Routes Spent fuel can be shipped only along specified rail and highway routes. The routes will be selected by the DOE, but States participate in the designation process. Eleven States have registered preferred routes for transportation of high-level radioactive materials. S. 1936 requires DOE to adhere to NRC regulations requiring advance notification of State and local governments prior to transportation of spent fuel. For those shipments that will be transported by truck, most of the designated routes travel along interstate highways and bypasses--not through major cities and towns. However, States may propose alternatives to the interstate highway system. Potentially affected States must be consulted in the designation of alternative routes. Shippers must file a written route plan with the NRC, including the origin-destination of the shipment, routes, planned stops, estimated arrival times at each stop, and emergency telephone numbers in each State the shipment will enter. Protection of Public Health and Safety During Shipments Federal regulations for transporting radioactive material ensure that the public and the environment are protected from dangerous releases of radioactivity. Three Federal agencies each play a key role in the safe transfer of radioactive materials from nuclear power plants to a central storage facility. The DOE is responsible for accepting, transporting, storing and disposing of spent fuel from nuclear power plants. The DOT regulates highway routing, packaging, labeling, shipping papers, personnel training, loading and unloading, handling and storage, as well as transportation vehicle requirements. The NRC regulates container design and manufacturing to ensure that containers maintain their integrity under routine transportation conditions and during severe accidents. S. 1936 requires that containers for nuclear fuel transport be licensed by the NRC. The agency also examines shipping routes to ensure the security of spent fuel shipments. According to NRC regulations, the radiation level of containers during shipment cannot exceed 10 millirem per hour at a distance of 6 feet from the truck. At this level, a person who spends 30 minutes standing 6 feet away from the vehicle carrying radioactive materials would receive 5 millirem of radiation. By comparison, the average person receives about 300 millirem each year from natural background radiation. Accidents Between 1971 and 1989, seven accidents occurred involving transportation of spent nuclear fuel. None caused any release of radioactivity. The most severe of these accidents occurred in 1971 in Tennessee. A tractor-trailer carrying a 25-ton spent fuel shipping container swerved to avoid a head-on collision, went out of control and overturned. The trailer, with the container still attached, broke free of the tractor and skidded into a rain-filled ditch. The container suffered minor damage, but did not release any radioactive material. Local Response-Training The Federal Government provides training and other assistance to the States so they may adequately respond in the event of an accident. Under existing law and S. 1936, DOE provides funding from the Federal Nuclear Waste Fund to train State and local officials and tribal emergency rescue workers and to develop emergency response and preparedness plans. S. 1936 also required the Secretary of Transportation to establish training standards applicable to workers directly involved in the removal, transportation, interim storage, and disposal of high-level radioactive waste. The DOE operates a Radiological Assistance Program, with eight regional offices staffed with experts available for immediate assistance. If necessary, police will summon those experts to handle the transportation package and remove any radioactive material that may have been released. Terrorism Terrorism has been given considerable attention in the planning, procedures and regulation of spent fuel transportation. It is highly unlikely that a terrorist would have the opportunity, the equipment, or the required expertise to sufficiently damage a spent nuclear fuel container to cause a radiation release. Points of origin, schedule, route, and mode of transportation are known only by a core group of Federal and State government officials. Special devices on vehicles, sophisticated satellite tracking, and armed security through populated areas will be employed to deter terrorist threats. Tests by Sandia National Laboratories evaluated the possibility of a terrorist attack. For security reasons, much of this information is classified; however, we do know that, for testing purposes, a container was subjected to a device 30 times more powerful than a typical anti- tank weapon. This test was conducted in a carefully controlled environment and resulted in a one-fourth of an inch in diameter hole through the primary containment wall. The NRC estimates that even a device this powerful would have caused a release of less than 10 grams of spent fuel. The 100 Millirem Standard S. 1936 establishes a 100 millirem standard for release of radioactivity from the repository as a maximum annual dose to an average member of the general population in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. This standard is consistent with current national and international standards designed to protect the public health and safety and the environment. S. 1936 also would allow the NRC to establish another standard if it finds that the 100 millirem level would pose an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of Nevadans. Conclusion In sum, I believe that S. 1936 is an effective short-term solution to our nuclear waste disposal, for both commercial and defense waste. A central interim storage facility is both environmentally and economically sound. To me, the choice seems clear. Why leave nuclear waste scattered throughout the country in various sites when it can be safely transferred and stored in one central site? A single storage site is clearly the pro-environmental option. Interim storage at a central Federal site enhances safety and efficiency in the management of spent fuel. In addition to the environmental benefits, central storage is significantly more cost-effective for electricity customers. Storing used fuel at a central interim storage facility would save consumers $4.3 billion if the facility is operating by 2000 and a repository begins accepting spent fuel in 2010. America's 110 nuclear power plants are this Nation's second largest source of electricity, constituting about 20 percent of our electric power. Nuclear energy supplies over 40 percent of all the new electricity required by the American people since 1973. Our nuclear power plants will also make the largest contribution of any technology toward meeting the Administration's year 2000 goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Whether we build new nuclear power plants in the future or not, we must deal responsibly with the nuclear fuel produced by our currently operating plants. We must also deal with the defense waste that this Nation has produced. S. 1936 is good policy and represents a safe, responsible solution that enjoys strong bipartisan support.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, while the Supreme Court has issued decisions protecting the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children, the lower courts have narrowly interpreted these decisions to give them almost no value as precedent. As a result, public school officials have been permitted to abuse their authority and compel students--at the objection of their parents--to participate in activities violative of deeply held religious beliefs. This must be of concern at a time when we are all seeking ways to strengthen families and inculcate values in our children. One case, which a respected Federal court judge brought to my attention, not only demonstrates the courts' unwillingness to respect the constitutional rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children, it illustrates a bizarre dichotomy that has developed between the first amendment religious clauses: the establishment clause, which prohibits an official religion in the United States, and the free-exercise clause, which ensures every American's freedom of conscience. It is my sincere hope that this discussion will prod the Congress into considering ways we can assure that the Constitution will be applied to protect the rights of parents committed to firm moral guidance of their children, and in the process repair the glaring inconsistency that now exists regarding enforcement of these religious clauses in our Constitution. One Senator who has responded to this challenge is Senator Grassley, who has introduced an important bill, the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, which would forbid Federal, State, and local governments from interfering with ``the right of a parent to direct the upbringing of the child of the parent.'' This could resuscitate the Supreme Court's pro-parental rights decisions. Senator Grassley cited the case I am going to discuss as an example of why his legislation deserves serious consideration. II. The Case On March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, Inc., 68 F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied, U.S. (1996), in which the district court ruled, and the circuit court upheld, that it is constitutional for a public school to compel students--some as young as 14--without notifying parents, to sit through an explicit AIDS awareness presentation. A ruling that permits public school officials to force students--over the objections of their parents--to participate in activities that violate deeply held religious beliefs should be of concern to us all. School officials at Chelmsford High School in Chelmsford, MA, knew full well what they were getting when they hired Suzi Landolphi, the owner of a company called Hot, Sexy, and Safer, to give presentations at two 90-minute assemblies at the school. They viewed a promotional videotape of the organization's past presentations as well as promotional brochures and articles. The superintendent and the assistant superintendent attended the presentation. The principal introduced the presenter to the students. While school officials were busy securing what the principal described as ``a very special program,'' no effort was made to alert parents about the assembly, and students were compelled to attend it. Some argue that public school officials cannot keep parents apprised of every detail of their children's education. But Landolphi's presentation was not a calculus exposition. It was a highly charged event, unrelated to subjects traditionally taught to high school students. A videotape of the program reveals that the presenter concentrated on personal matters and used language so graphic that it would make former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders blush. Abstinence was never discussed as an option to avoid contracting AIDS. The assemblies were, however, filled with lewd demonstrations of crude sexual acts. Landolphi kicked off her presentation to 9th and 10th grade students by saying, ``This is amaz[ing]--I can't believe how many people came here to listen to someone talk about sex, instead of staying home and having it yourself.'' This may have been the high water mark for the show. During the program, the presenter told the students that they were going to have a ``group sexual experience, with audience participation''; told a minor he was not ``having enough orgasms''; commented about a minor's ``nice butt''; characterized the loose pants worn by a student as ``erection wear''; and had a male student lick an oversized prophylactic, after which she had a female student pull it over the male's head. Landolphi was also philosophical: ``When we are younger, we know about our private parts. We're less embarrassed. Why is that? With all of us sitting in this room right now--I mean, have you ever really sat down and thought about your private parts? Did you ever think about them?'' She concluded her presentation by instructing the students to ``Become sexually proud and confident people. Know how you work. Tell your parents about sex.'' Not only was Ms. Landolphi's program salacious, it was astonishingly inaccurate. Example: ``When you find out someone you love has this virus, you tell them they can fight this virus, and they might fight it so well that they may never get ill. That's a fact.'' She informed these students that those infected with HIV could avoid AIDS by getting rid of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and stress. And what, according to Landolphi, relieves stress? ``Sex, of course.'' For school officials to hold such a controversial--to put it mildly-- event without parental notification suggests these officials may have deliberately sidestepped the parents. Even if, on the other hand, this heedlessness was inadvertent, it begs a broader question: Have some public school officials become so arrogant that they do not even give thought to the views of the people they serve--the community--when planning school events? Some Chelmsford parents believed that their constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children was violated. A Federal district court judge and a court of appeals, however, ruled against the parents. The district court judge, in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, opined: ``Parents who send their children to public schools * * * daily risk their children's exposure, both inside and outside the classroom, to ideas and values that the parents and the children find offensive.'' Memorandum and Order, Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, No. 93-11842, slip op. at 10 (D. Mass. January 19, 1995). The effect of this brush off is to treat a convinced Christian, Jew, Muslim, or parent of other religious faith as insufficiently enlightened, deserving of exclusion from the educational process along with other narrow-minded and ignorant people. The erosion of our values that this kind of indiscriminate reasoning represents is truly breathtaking. III. Constitutional Protection for Parental Rights The liberty clause of the 14th amendment, and the free exercise clause of the first amendment, should protect parents from overreaching public school officials. The 14th amendment claim is stronger, but there is also precedent for the first amendment to protect a religious person from neutral government action hostile to his or her beliefs. A. Fourteenth Amendment The Supreme Court firmly recognizes that certain practices are ``so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental'' and therefore merit protection under the 14th amendment. Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937). I can think of few rights as fundamental as the right of a parent to control the religious upbringing of his or her children. A troika of Supreme Court decisions have encouraged us to see this route as potentially fruitful. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), the Court ruled that the liberty clause of the 14th amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to bring up children. The right of the parents to have their children instructed in a foreign language was, according to the Court, ``within the liberty of the amendment.'' Id. at 400. The Court reaffirmed this right in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). In Pierce the Court declared unconstitutional a State statute that required public school education of children aged 8 to 16. The Court reasoned that the statute ``unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control * * * The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'' Id. at 534, 535. While decided primarily on free exercise grounds, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), a decision upholding the right of Amish parents to remove their children from public schools, acknowledged the liberty interest of parents to control the upbringing of their children. ``The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate.'' Id. at 232. In the Chelmsford case, the circuit court arrogantly dismissed the 14th amendment claim of the parents, commenting that ``the Meyer and Pierce cases were decided well before the current `right to privacy' jurisprudence was developed, and the Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the right to direct the upbringing and education of one's children is among those fundamental rights whose infringement merits heightened scrutiny.'' Hot, Sexy and Safer 68 F.3d at 533. For the Court to suggest that decisions regarding fundamental rights, including, for example, the right to marry, are pre-empted until reanalyzed under the Supreme Court's constitutionally suspect privacy decisions is, if not novel, absurd. But again, when cases involve religion, the courts all too often come up with imaginative reasons to avoid following good case law. B. First Amendment At first blush, the first amendment's free exercise clause seems like a weak instrument for those who seek relief from neutral State action that inhibits the practice of religion. It was, after all, Justice Scalia who wrote the decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990), which announced that a ``neutral, generally applicable'' law does not violate the free-exercise clause even when it prohibits religious exercise in effect. The free exercise claim advanced by the Chelmsford parents would have the same problem, if Smith were to be our guide. While the school officials at Chelmsford High School certainly offended religious children by offering the AIDS presentation, it does not seem that they intended to single out religious individuals for the offensive show. Indeed, they were equal opportunity offenders. But for those ready to close the door on free exercise claims when government, by application of a neutral mandate, coerces individuals to violate their own religious practices, such as in the Chelmsford case, the matter is not set. Relevant to Chelmsford, the Yoder Court held that when a 14th amendment-based claim to protect the fundamental right to control the religious upbringing of their children is combined with a free-exercise claim--a ``hybrid'' situation--the first amendment claim is enhanced. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 233. Smith acknowledges Yoder hybrid claims. Smith, 494 U.S. at 881. Also relevant to the Chelmsford case, Justice Scalia, in a useful concurrence in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 559 (1993), questioned whether the rule he authored in Smith, which garnered five votes on the Court, and was the subject of a spirited attack by Justice O'Connor, merits adherence. Justice Scalia suggests that Smith is deficient in resolving free-exercise claims when ``Neutral, generally applicable' laws, drafted as they are from the perspective of the nonadherent, have the unavoidable potential of putting the believer to a choice between God and government.'' Id. at 577. In chronicling the tensions in free exercise jurisprudence--the mechanistic approach of Smith, versus the more nuanced approach of Yoder--the Justices concludes that neither line of cases is controlling: ``Our cases now present competing answers to the question when Government, while pursuing secular ends, may compel disobedience to what one believes religion commands.'' Id. at 559. If the Court does reevaluate the free-exercise clause, and decides that a more expansive reading is warranted--as it has already done with gusto for the other first amendment religious clause, the establishment clause--Justice Scalia offers some preliminary thoughts on a revitalized free exercise clause more sympathetic to the plaintiffs in coercion cases, such as that of Chelmsford, and a persuasive rationale for why the Court should resolve this conundrum: A law that is religion neutral on its face or in its purpose may lack neutrality in its effect by forbidding something that religion requires or requiring something that religion forbids. A secular law, applicable to all, that prohibits consumption of alcohol, for example, will affect members of religions that require the use of wine differently from members of other religious and nonbelievers, disproportionality burdening the practice of, say, Catholicism or Judaism.'' Id. at 560 (emphasis added). What the Chelmsford school officials did, with the District Court's backing, was require something that was against the religion of some of the students. Thus this legal framework could provide relief for such compulsion situations. The circuit court in Chelmsford dismissed the free-exercise claim under the Yoder scheme on two grounds: First, the free-exercise challenge was not ``conjoined with an independently protected constitutional protection,'' and Second, the free-exercise claim was distinguishable because the parents did not ``allege that the one-time compulsory attendance at the Program threatened their entire way of life.'' Hot, Sexy, and Safer, 68 F.3d at 539. Neither rationale is persuasive. As mentioned above, the Supreme Court has firmly recognized that parents enjoy certain constitutional protections in directing the upbringing of their children. And the hybrid situation developed in Yoder, and noted in Smith, does not require that an individual's entire way of life be threatened for there to be constitutional recourse. IV. Dichotomy in First Amendment Religious Clauses While the courts have taken great pains not to disturb neutrally drafted laws when considering free-exercise claims, and even Justices sympathetic to religious freedom, such as Justice Scalia, have agonized over these decisions, the courts are aggressive in restricting religious activities under the establishment clause. The result: an extreme dichotomy in religious clauses jurisprudence. Contrast the federal courts' refusal to recognize free-exercise claims with their zeal in banning prayers at school ceremonies under the establishment clause. In the same year the AIDS presentation at Chelmsford High School occurred, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) that a prayer given by a rabbi during a middle school commencement program violated this clause. Let's take a look at a part of the offending prayer: God of the Free, Hope of the Brave: For the legacy of America where diversity is celebrated and the rights of minorities are protected, we thank You. May these young men and women grow up to enrich it. . . . May our aspirations for our country and for these young people, who are our hope for the future, be richly fulfilled. Id. at 581,582. In his opinion for the majority, Justice Kennedy reasoned that ``heightened concerns [exist] when protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools.'' Id. at 592. But where is the concern for the subtle coercive pressure of a mandatory AIDS assembly, whose graphic details and panderingly hip attitude toward human sexuality, offend the core values of believers in the great religions of the world? Consider that if one agrees with Justice Kennedy that students should not be coerced to listen to prayer, it is hard to understand why one wouldn't agree that the free- exercise clause should protect a school from coercing a student to participate in an activity which violates that students's religion. But a double-standard has emerged that the Chelmsford case perfectly illustrates. The offending prayer delivered by the rabbi in Weisman was less than 2 minutes long, compared to the 90-minute presentation which took place at Chelmsford High School. The Court in Weisman did not require that the student's life lie in ruin when invalidating a benign commencement prayer. Also consider that the prayer in Weisman is a religious statement that is well within the tradition of benedictions at graduation ceremonies, and that parents accompanied the students and had notice that the rabbi was speaking. We remove prayer because it's offensive to 1 out of 100, but don't remove--or at least make optional--material highly offensive to a student of faith. I believe that most Americans would agree that something is corrupt within our jurisprudence when an indecent presentation directed at minors is constitutional while a short commencement prayer delivered by a member of the clergy is unconstitutional. V. Conclusion When a public school presents controversial subjects, out of courtesy, it should notify parents, and give them the opportunity to have their children opt out. This isn't burdensome; it's the morally right thing to do. If public school officials exercised this courtesy in the first place, the Chelmsford controversy could have been avoided. I believe the courts should return to the spirit of the Supreme Court decisions on parental rights, and recognize and protect the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The U.S. Constitution requires no less. Meanwhile, Congress should consider legislation, such as Senator Grassley's parental rights bill, to prod the courts to respect one of the most basic, and important fundamental rights.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, methamphetamine is, if not the most dangerous drug in America today, one of the fastest spreading. In Western States, meth is already the crack epidemic of the 1990's. Meth is cheap, easy to manufacture, and readily available. The drug is a synthetic compound that stimulates the central nervous system and causes psychosis, paranoid delusions, and acts of violence. The drug is most prevalent in four Western cities--Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. The damage the drug has caused in Arizona is startling. Phoenix police attribute meth use as a factor in the 40 percent jump in homicides in 1994. Meth-related deaths in Phoenix have soared from 11 in 1991 to 122 in 1994. According to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, 1 in 17 Arizona high school students reported using meth in the last 30 days. The drug is also behind the headlines of several horrific crimes that have occurred in the State. Arizona has taken action, and a methamphetamine bill offered by State Representative Paul Mortenson, passed the legislature in Phoenix and was signed into law by Governor Symington this April. The bill increases the penalties for those who produce and sell the drug, and criminalizes the possession of equipment or chemicals used in the manufacture of dangerous drugs. Appropriately, the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, is addressing the methamphetamine explosion. I would particularly like to point out the fine work of Senator Feinstein on this issue. Senator Feinstein introduced the predecessor to this bill, and last month successfully amended a defense bill to stop the Federal Government from inadvertently selling to illicit manufacturers the chemicals used to make meth. The Methamphetamine Control Act accomplishes much. The bill: Increases the penalties for the trafficking and manufacture of methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals. The new penalties put the penalties for meth on the same level with crack; Increases the penalties for the illegal manufacture and possession of equipment used to manufacture meth; Requires those convicted of offenses relating to methamphetamine to provide restitution to the United States for the costs incurred by the United States for the cleanup associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine; Regulates the sale of over-the-counter drugs that contain the precursor chemicals for methamphetamine if the sale exceeds a substantial threshold quantity; and Establishes a Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force to develop strategies to fight the use of this drug. The devastating effects of meth are seen every day in our jails, our emergency rooms, and our morgues. We must do everything we can to withstand this tide of poison. America can't afford another epidemic like crack, which destroyed countless individuals, families, and communities.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, methamphetamine is, if not the most dangerous drug in America today, one of the fastest spreading. In Western States, meth is already the crack epidemic of the 1990's. Meth is cheap, easy to manufacture, and readily available. The drug is a synthetic compound that stimulates the central nervous system and causes psychosis, paranoid delusions, and acts of violence. The drug is most prevalent in four Western cities--Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. The damage the drug has caused in Arizona is startling. Phoenix police attribute meth use as a factor in the 40 percent jump in homicides in 1994. Meth-related deaths in Phoenix have soared from 11 in 1991 to 122 in 1994. According to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, 1 in 17 Arizona high school students reported using meth in the last 30 days. The drug is also behind the headlines of several horrific crimes that have occurred in the State. Arizona has taken action, and a methamphetamine bill offered by State Representative Paul Mortenson, passed the legislature in Phoenix and was signed into law by Governor Symington this April. The bill increases the penalties for those who produce and sell the drug, and criminalizes the possession of equipment or chemicals used in the manufacture of dangerous drugs. Appropriately, the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, is addressing the methamphetamine explosion. I would particularly like to point out the fine work of Senator Feinstein on this issue. Senator Feinstein introduced the predecessor to this bill, and last month successfully amended a defense bill to stop the Federal Government from inadvertently selling to illicit manufacturers the chemicals used to make meth. The Methamphetamine Control Act accomplishes much. The bill: Increases the penalties for the trafficking and manufacture of methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals. The new penalties put the penalties for meth on the same level with crack; Increases the penalties for the illegal manufacture and possession of equipment used to manufacture meth; Requires those convicted of offenses relating to methamphetamine to provide restitution to the United States for the costs incurred by the United States for the cleanup associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine; Regulates the sale of over-the-counter drugs that contain the precursor chemicals for methamphetamine if the sale exceeds a substantial threshold quantity; and Establishes a Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force to develop strategies to fight the use of this drug. The devastating effects of meth are seen every day in our jails, our emergency rooms, and our morgues. We must do everything we can to withstand this tide of poison. America can't afford another epidemic like crack, which destroyed countless individuals, families, and communities.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is regrettable that the bill that comes before us today combines two unrelated and very different issues--tax relief with an increase in the minimum wage. I presume that the two issues were coupled in an effort to mitigate the adverse effect that the minimum wage increase would have on small businesses. It would not, however, mitigate the adverse effect on those individuals who will be unable to find jobs, or who will lose their jobs, on account of the increased wage that the Federal Government will have mandated. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed 21- percent increase in the minimum wage to $5.15 would create job losses of between 100,000 to 500,000. In addition, CBO has said that the creation of thousands of jobs could be inhibited if the minimum wage is increased. I have heard from numerous constituents who are opposed to an increase in the minimum wage. One motel management owner in Arizona wrote me to say that the tax repeal provisions of the bill are not enough to offset the negative ramifications of an increase in the minimum wage. Another constituent, the owner of a fast-food restaurant in Arizona, wrote to say that employees could be let go if the minimum wage is increased. Congress can best facilitate increased job creation and wages by decreasing governmental interference in business and reducing taxes. I ask unanimous consent that a recent Arizona Republic editorial that provides a good summary of why raising the minimum wage is a bad idea be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there are far too many people in Washington who like to play fast and loose with other people's money. They are not content just to tax away a large share of people's hard-earned incomes to spend on government-knows-best programs. They even want to tell people how they have to spend the money they have left over after taxes. They trust the American people so little that they feel they have to dictate what benefits they can receive and even what wages they can work for. Combined with high taxes, it is a prescription for the kind of anemic economic growth and stagnating wages that have been plaguing the Nation. It is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The economy is still in peril. Mr. President, I contend that the way to get people off of minimum wage is to ensure that the economy is healthy and growing and providing people with the opportunity to earn a better living for themselves and their families. It is no coincidence that slow economic growth and stagnating wages have predominated since the low-tax policies of the 1980's were abandoned in favor of the high-tax policies of the 1990's. As noted in a recent report by the Institute for Policy Innovation, the economy has grown by about 2.2 percent on average so far this decade. By comparison, it grew at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent during the Reagan years. Had the economy done as well during the Bush and Clinton administrations as it did under President Reagan, the economy would be $2.6 trillion larger than it is today. That would have added $21,000 to the average family's income between 1990 and 1996. Annual revenues to the Treasury would have been $90 billion greater, an amount that would cut this year's budget deficit by more than half. So how do we promote the kind of growth that helped make everyone better off during the Reagan years? Cut taxes. As President John F. Kennedy once said, ``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 tax relief provisions in this bill, H.R. 3448, are a modest first step in the right direction. For example, we extend the tax exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance, something that will help people improve themselves and get ahead. We extend the work opportunity credit and increase expensing for small businesses to encourage them to invest in new property and create new jobs. We extend the research and experimentation tax credit, and permit non-working spouses the same opportunity to save in individual retirement accounts. These and other changes in the law relating to S corporations and pension law are good steps toward making tax policy more conducive to economic growth and opportunity. I would add, however, that they are only modest first steps. They are no substitute for the across-the- board income tax rate reduction that many of us think would do far more good for the economy. The tax changes we are considering here are good and sound. If we had the opportunity to vote on the merits, I would support them. However, these modest changes are not sufficient to justify the high cost of the minimum wage increase being proposed --a cost that will be borne by employees as much as employers.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia both for taking time to get into this matter and also for yielding time to me. I was perplexed, to say the least, as I sat through hearings as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee just before the Fourth of July break, hearing testimony from Mr. Livingstone and others regarding this matter of the FBI files. I am going to come back to some conclusions that came out of that hearing and some questions that remain in a moment. I thought, first, perhaps, it would be useful to discuss generally what we have here. There have been, especially in the time since Watergate, numerous investigations of officials involved in different administrations. To some extent, I think this has been politically motivated. To a large extent, I think it is a process that is important in a democracy, because people need to have confidence in their Government, particularly when people in high places are accused of wrongdoing or there is a potential of wrongdoing. We have established a system whereby an independent kind of investigator or prosecutor called the special counsel is appointed by the Attorney General, with court acquiescence, to investigate matters. There have been prosecutions from time to time in administrations since the Watergate matter that have demonstrated it is wise to have these kinds of special counsel available to look into such matters. While there may be some politics involved, and certainly Republicans believe there is politics involved in some of the investigations in the Reagan and Bush administrations, and I am sure that some Democrats believe there is glee in Republican ranks to find things wrong now in a Democratic administration, the fact is it is still important to try to get to the bottom of some of these matters, particularly where it goes beyond politics. I think it can be demonstrated with this administration that it has gone far beyond politics, that there has been wrongdoing, and that there are people in this administration that, to say the least, have been ethically challenged. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, according to an article written by Mary McGrory in the Washington Post, President Clinton said that his administration would be the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic. That was shortly after he was inaugurated. I think history will reveal that this is one of the most ethically challenged administrations in the history of the Republic. This FBI scandal is, frankly, just the latest of the scandals in the Clinton White House. As the Senator from Georgia pointed out, this involves the misuse of about 900--at least that is the number we have so far--900 FBI files. Going back to reflect on what has occurred earlier in this administration, and again this is not really partisan because if you look at the last three Presidents, President Carter, President Reagan, and President Bush, I think almost all Americans would agree that all three of these Presidents had the highest ethical standards, Carter a Democrat, the other two Republicans. It did not matter what their politics were. I think most Americans believe that all three of them are people of the greatest integrity and repute. To the extent there was any wrongdoing in any of their administrations each one of them had accusations made, they took responsibility, they tried to clean house, and their integrity, I think, remains without question. In this particular administration, look at what we have. We have first of all, Roger Altman, Treasury Secretary who misled Congress about his discussions of a Whitewater-connected S&L. He resigned. Henry Cisneros, the HUD Secretary under investigation by court-appointed counsel for lying to the FBI. Mike Espy, former Secretary of Agriculture, under investigation for taking illegal gifts. He resigned. Web Hubble, a very close associate of the President and First Lady, Associate Attorney General, has been sentenced to 21 months in jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. William Kennedy, former associate White House counsel, and possibly one of the people involved in the hirings of Craig Livingstone, failed to pay Social Security taxes and resigned. Bernard Nussbaum, former White House counsel, resigned his post after being accused of improper contacts with Whitewater investigators. David Watkins, former White House director of administration, resigned after he used a Presidential helicopter to play golf. Hazel O'Leary, Secretary of Energy, has committees looking after her travel, and though she is still in the job, questions remain. More than a dozen indictments relating generally to Whitewater, most resulting in plea bargains, if not convictions. As a matter of fact, three close associates of the President were convicted by a jury, including the President's hand-picked successor, Gov. Jim Guy Tucker. Then the Travelgate matter. It was as a result of the Travelgate investigation that the information about the FBI files came out. It was, really, quite by accident. The House committee investigating the Travelgate matter had asked for 3,000 documents, all of which had been denied by the White House, 3,000 documents. Finally, under threat of subpoena and contempt of Congress if they did not comply with the subpoena, the White House agreed to turn over one-third of those documents. It was one of those 1,000 documents that led investigators of the House committee into the FBI file issue, because there was a reference to FBI files having been obtained, I think, perhaps, relating to Billy Dale who was the fired head of the Travel Office of the White House. The rest, as is commonly said, is history. It was learned first that there were about 300 files, then 400, and as the Senator from Georgia pointed out, it may now be as many as 900 files improperly obtained, most of which were reviewed. It is unclear whether information in those files has been revealed to people improperly. In any event, the mere review of those files was improper, as was the acquisition of those files from the FBI. Also, quite improper was the storage of the files then in the White House, rather than having them returned to the FBI. The fact they were not secure and many people had access to them who should not have had access to them, we do not know yet what might have been done with those files and whether information was copied or used. We may not know for a long time whether information in those files, stored away in somebody's drawer, might later come back to haunt some of the people whose files were improperly obtained. All of this is beginning to come out. It is not coming out from the White House. It is having to be gathered by the House committee, the Senate committee, the special prosecutor. Just little bits and pieces of information keep coming out. There is no coming clean by this administration, which was going to be the most ethical in history. As a matter of fact, the President originally attributed this whole matter to a bureaucratic snafu. Now, I think one of two things is true, Mr. President, but a bureaucratic snafu is not one of them. Here is what we know for a fact: A political operative, so described in the press, I am talking about Craig Livingstone, part of his responsibilities in previous campaigns had been opposition research, and part of it had been to cause Republicans traveling around George Bush, I think, in particular, trouble when he stopped at various locations. But Craig Livingstone has had a history in Democratic campaigns of snooping on the opposition, learning facts. I believe it was by his own admission or perhaps he was proud of the fact that he learned things about the Dan Quayle campaign, took them back to the Mondale campaign, and, as a result of that in the debate that Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen had, Bentsen was able to come up with the great line, ``You're no John Kennedy,'' because Livingstone had learned in advance that Quayle was going to compare himself during this debate to John Kennedy. So here you have a man who has admitted that he is a political snoop--some say dirt digger, but let us use the term that is generally applied, and that is a person skilled in ``opposition research,'' an individual who finds out things about the opposition in political campaigns, a person with no professional security experience whatsoever. Now, when this administration comes into power, people who have been there through Democrat and Republican administrations, nonpartisan, professional security people, who have been in charge of White House personnel files, to get clearance so that the people who are in the White House are all cleared, are let go. Mr. Livingstone is brought in, and nobody seems to remember who hired him. Nobody can recall. This is the first job this guy has in the White House, and he cannot remember who hired him. I think if I got a job in the White House, I would remember who hired me. But that is another matter. This person, with no experience whatsoever, certainly not a professional in security matters, is put in charge of what? He is put in charge of the most sensitive material on any American citizen--their FBI file. These are the things which people have had to tell the FBI in order to get clearance. They are the most sensitive things about their history that exist. These FBI files, then, are routinely reviewed by the security office in order to give these clearances. Craig Livingstone is specifically given the job of clearing people for the ability to be in the White House and have access to the White House. Now, is it a coincidence that somebody who is skilled primarily in opposition research in political campaigns just happens to come across 300, 400, 600, maybe 900 FBI files--almost exclusively of Republicans-- and that he then has a friend of his, who also has been involved in this kind of political activity, review those files? Is it just coincidence that a person with that kind of background then begins to conduct this kind of activity? Maybe so. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that he was told to do it and he was following orders. Those are the two possibilities, Mr. President. There was no bureaucratic snafu because there was no bureaucrat involved. There was a paid political operative involved. One of the things that I think we need to find out is exactly what did Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca do when they worked in the various Presidential campaigns that they worked in? Were they involved, as has been reported, in doing opposition research? Why were they hired? Who made the decision to hire them? Why were they hired? People with no security background skills, but very skilled in opposition research-- apparently--according to Craig Livingstone's own comments in his hometown newspaper. Why were they hired? Who hired them? What instructions were they given? Were they simply operating on their own? Based upon the information that has come out in the hearings, it is very unclear whether or not anybody gave them instructions. It is not resolved yet. That is an open question. It may be that if you hire a plumber, you will assume he will do plumbing. And if you hire an opposition researcher, the assumption is that he will do some opposition research for you. Maybe there does not have to be an explicit instruction. As a matter of fact, maybe under the doctrine of plausible deniability here, the instructions were given in a wink and a nod so that anybody higher up in the White House could say, ``Gee, I never told him to dig up dirt on Republicans. I guess he just did that on his own. We certainly did not ask him to do it.'' So it seems to me that one of two things is true. When you hire a political operative, a person who is skilled in opposition research, by his own account, and he happens to gather up the files of the opposition on, in effect, 800 or 900 Republicans, it could be coincidence. That could be true. It could also be that it was intentional. If it was intentional, it was for the purpose of learning information about these people which could later be used for political purposes. There has been a lot of speculation about possible motives. There is no question that Billy Dale, the head of the travel office, was greatly mistreated by this administration. The FBI was brought in to investigate. He was eventually prosecuted and, of course, he was found innocent. But his file was among those requested, and the files were from A to G, and that certainly falls within that area. So it could have been to get information on him, and the rest of the files were used for cover. It could have been that this administration, intent on learning everything it could about 900 Republicans--there were something like a thousand people who needed access to the White House, who needed clearance, and they had not even complied with the FBI yet so they could be cleared. It was a year or two before many people who needed security clearances in this administration were cleared. It finally became a scandal about this same time. Dee Dee Myers, the press secretary, did not even have clearance. Time after time, people who needed clearance put off interviews with the FBI, refused to give them information. It was not until after this that the GAO did an audit and the White House had to clean up its act and at least get the information together to provide the security clearances for people who required access to the White House. There is speculation that in order to, in effect, cover for that deficiency and inadequacy, the thought was that if we dig up some dirt on Republicans, that will even it out and there will not be so much heat put on us. Maybe it was simply for future use, or for present and future use. We do not know. We have not gotten answers to some questions yet. Either it was an enormous coincidence, or there was something more sinister behind it. In either event, it was wrong, and no one has denied that access to these FBI files by people who should not have had access for these reasons was wrong, was unethical and, perhaps, depending upon if IRS material was in the files, for example, was illegal as well. So let us just conclude with some questions here that I think we are going to need to get the answers to before we make any accusations. I do not think we know enough yet to make accusations. Here are some of the questions I would like to have answered. Let us tie down exactly who hired Livingstone and why. It was, as George Stephanopolous points out, an incredibly loose, informal, and I would say negligent approach to hiring one of the most important people in the White House. He happened to be on board when Kennedy got there and, therefore, they just assumed he should be the guy in charge. So his employment was then ratified. Well, who decided all of that, and on what basis was Livingstone hired as opposed to some professional? As a matter of fact, the White House had a recommendation before it by the then chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, my predecessor, Senator DeConcini from Arizona--a Democrat, by the way. After reviewing the White House security office situation, that committee made recommendations, conveyed by Senator DeConcini, that the White House had to get its act together and appoint a professional, nonpartisan person to head this office. That was not done. As a matter of fact, I have read that letter of transmittal. There was a very nice response back by the then White House counsel, Lloyd Cutler, who thanked Senator DeConcini for the information and said they would get back to the committee after deciding what to do. As far as I know, there was never any further response. It was known that there was a problem here. So, in a bipartisan way, recommendations were made to the White House to clean it up. But it apparently was not cleaned up. Who discussed this within the White House? Why were the political operatives put in charge of reviewing these files? What activities did Livingstone and Marceca actually perform in the Democratic campaigns of George McGovern, Ed Muskie, Geraldine Ferraro, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and others? Are these men the political opposition researchers, dirt diggers, spoofs, or whatever you want to call it? Did Livingstone infiltrate the Dan Quayle campaign? Who gave them their instructions and what were they? Did anyone in the White House ever become aware of any of the information from those files? This information only came to light, as I said, because the House oversight committee was going to subpoena it from the White House. But there are still 2,000 documents that have not been reviewed. There is now an arrangement under which the House committee can look at those 2,000 documents. But they cannot be taken out of the White House possession. What is in those 2,000 documents? Finally, when the problem was discovered, why did the White House not come forward? Why was Craig Livingstone hired? If it was merely a mistake, as the White House indicated, one would have thought, if this is the most ethical White House in the history of the Republic, that the White House would have come forward and would have said, ``We want to find out something here; we want to make everybody aware of it; here is a big mistake; here is what it is.'' You would have assumed they would have come forward. One of the suggestions of wrongdoing is there is an attempt to cover up. Certainly in this case there has been an attempt to cover up. So I realize these are more questions than answers but I think these are the things that we need to get out, and we need to find the answers to. And in this case, unlike the assertion with regard to certain other situations, there is already an acknowledgment by everyone that there was something wrong done. It was a question about whether it was intentional, or just accidental. But clearly it was wrong. So I do not think we can have the excuse that we should not be spending money to look into this, that there should not be hearings to get to the bottom of it, and so on. Remember that when there is any illegality, or impropriety, or something that is wrong and gives people less confidence in their Government, we need to get to the bottom of it because the essence of a democratic republic, such as ours, is that the people run their government, they have confidence in it, they have trust in it, and when that lags, when that fails, when it frays, then the very fabric of our Government begins to come apart. So, Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Georgia for having this discussion to bring some of these questions to the floor; to raise some of the questions that we still need to get answers to. And I think it is appropriate, both for this body and for the House of Representatives, to continue the investigation to get to the bottom of the matter so that at a very minimum nothing like this can ever happen again. It is people's lives that have been intruded into here; innocent people. And the power of the Federal Government and of the White House should never be used for political retribution, or to disclose the deepest secrets of any individual for improper purposes. Therefore, we have every reason, I think, to ask these questions and to try to get to the bottom of this FBI file matter. Again, I thank the Senator from Georgia for bringing this matter to the light of day. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to offer an amendment to make $3 million available from the $168.7 million in the Counterproliferation Support Program for the Surgical Strike Vehicle [SSV], which, when deployed, will hold at risk hardened or deeply buried targets of our enemies. As recent press reports indicate, the proliferation of hardened and deeply buried targets for storage and production of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and their delivery systems is a serious threat to U.S. national security and that of our allies. The lack of a weapon that can hold these targets at risk has not gone unnoticed by rogue nations interested in proceeding with their weapons of mass destruction programs in relative immunity from likely--that is, nonnuclear--U.S. military responses. Few nonnuclear weapon concepts offer near-term capabilities against these underground facilities, however one Air Force concept, the Surgical Strike Vehicle, offers an interim solution with unprecedented deep penetration capability at significant standoff range. SSV integrates existing technologies and subsystems to produce a near-term solution against hardened and deeply buried targets. SSV is a B-52H launched, rocket propelled missile systems utilizing global positioning system-based guidance for prompt, precise, and hypervelocity impact of hardened and buried targets. SSV builds on the very successful USAF/Phillips Laboratory Missile Technology Demonstration-1 mission, which demonstrated the tightly coupled GPS navigation accuracy and successful penetration of weather granite at the White Sands missile range, New Mexico. In this August 1995 test, a simulated subscale Earth penetrating warhead was precisely delivered on target at extremely high velocity, resulting in a successful penetration of 31 feet of granite. Much higher penetration depths are possible with full-scale penetrators and higher impact velocities, which the current system is capable of delivering. SSV is particularly suited to the high-value hardened and deeply buried target problem because it offers the following attributes: global coverage from CONUS, promptness--10 minutes from missile launch to impact--significant standoff range--launch over international waters against likely targets--Precision Lethality, >1,800 pounds of penetrating warheads at optimal peneteration velocity delivers a conventional high explosive, incendiary, or other warhead into any known cut-and-cover target and many tunnel targets; low probability of detection prior to impact for likely adversaries; immunity to air defenses or active countermeasures, jamming; and relative affordability. I am pleased to support the SSV program and hope the Senate will agree that this program is meritorious.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the attacks on the churches, predominantly in the Southeast, are far more than attacks on these institutions--they are attacks on the very foundation of the United States. This country was formed to protect people's religious liberty. Burning a place of worship assaults this principle. The American people, who cherish religious freedom, do not look kindly on the destruction of houses of worship. I think the American people are particularly concerned--I know I am-- that a disproportionate number of these attacks have occurred at African-American churches. Of the 56 church burnings in the past 18 months, approximately 40 were predominantly African-American houses of worship. Many of these institutions are more than places of prayer-- they are the center of the community. According to the Justice Department, racial hatred is behind at least some of the burnings. Authorities will need to continue to investigate whether the fires prove to be part of a conspiracy or the work of individual miscreants. It is important to note that church burnings have occurred outside of the Southeast, including in Arizona. This February, the 65-year-old First Southern Baptist Church in Tucson was badly damaged by a fire that is now under Federal investigation. The Pastor, Ron Hart, said words with universal appeal: ``The First Southern Baptist Church did not burn down--just the building. The church is scattered all over Tucson. People are the church. We can rebuild.'' While it took too long for the church burnings to bother America's conscience, now that the issue is in the open, there is action on many fronts to put an end to the fires, capture those responsible, and help rebuild destroyed institutions. Federal and State law-enforcement agencies are working together to solve these crimes against the people of America. Over 200 Federal law- enforcement agents are on the case, and many more State and local officials are investigating the fires. A laudable example of Federal-State cooperation will soon occur in my State of Arizona. Next week, in Phoenix, the FBI and the Phoenix Police Department will host a forum on the church burnings with African- American pastors. In responding to the burnings, the Congress has acted in a most appropriate bipartisan fashion to get to the bottom of these terrorist incidents. Hearings have already been held in the House. And today the Senate Judiciary Committee learned the latest on the criminal investigation. Senators Faircloth and Kennedy and Representatives Hyde and Conyers have drafted church arson legislation that will soon reach the President. Both chambers have passed it unanimously. The measure will sharpen federal penalties for the burning of churches and enhance the resources available to law enforcement to investigate and prevent such acts of arson in the future. Another key element of the legislation provides Federal loan guarantees to help rebuild the razed churches. Senator Kennedy describes this section as an ``important provision granting the Department of Housing and Urban Development the authority to make loan guarantees to lenders who provide loans to places of worship that have been victimized by arson.'' This section is important for the comfort it will provide to churches that lack the resources to rebuild, assuming that it does not violate the wall of separation between church and State. Private efforts are at least equally impressive. Organizations both religious and nonreligious have pledged millions in grants and loans to help rebuild the churches. The reaction of the religious community is particularly commendable and welcome. During the civil rights struggle, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. lamented the religious community's lack of support for those engaged in efforts to end segregation and promote equality: Called to be the moral guardian of the community, the Church at times has preserved that which is immoral and unethical. Called to combat social evils, it has remained silent behind stained-glass windows. I think Dr. King would be very happy to learn that America has grown, and this indifference is no longer the case. Before the church burnings received national attention, the Christian Coalition posted a $25,000 award for information leading to the conviction of any church arsonist, and recently, the group announced a major fundraising drive to repair and reconstruct the houses of worship. The Southern Baptist Convention, at its annual meeting this month, passed a resolution condemning the arsons, and initiated an offering to help rebuild the churches. Other notable organizations have offered assistance, including the National Council of Churches and the Anti-Defamation League. I applaud all those who have undertaken these efforts. We must all continue to work together as one people--the American people--to douse the flames, punish those responsible, and rebuild what pernicious bigotry and hatred have sought to destroy.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me make what may be my concluding remarks. The Senator from Oregon, who will make a motion in just a moment, had two primary points. I would like to respond to both of them. The first is, he said we do not want to change our testing policy now. I know that is the thing that animates him most in this debate. I want to state to everybody here that there is no intention to do this. This amendment does not do it. It is the President who establishes a testing policy. There is not a word in this amendment that suggests that we ought to test, how we ought to test; nothing whatsoever. All we do in this amendment is to preserve existing law. So we are not going to change our policy by this law. We are going to preserve it. We are going to say that after September 30 the ability of the President to test, if he thinks it is necessary, would continue to exist until there is a CTBT. That will expire unless we extend his authority. There is one condition under which we would be allowed to test in the future, as the Senator from Nebraska has pointed out; that is, if another nation tests. That does not have anything to do with whether we ought to test unless we are trying to develop a new weapon, and nobody is suggesting that we would test for that reason. Listen to the words that I read of the President of the United States, Bill Clinton. Here is what he said he would need the authority to do under a test ban regime. August 11, 1995, his statement regarding the CTBT, his safeguard F specifically says: If the President of the United States is informed by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, advised by the Nuclear Weapons Council, Directors of the DOE's Nuclear Weapons Laboratories, and the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command that a high level of confidence in the safety and reliability of a nuclear weapon type, which the two Secretaries consider to be critical to our nuclear deterrent, could no longer be certified, the President, in consultation with Congress, would be prepared to withdraw from the CTBT under the standards of the Supreme National Interest Clause, if in order, to conduct whatever testing might be required. That is the authority that President Bill Clinton says he will need to have in the future. He will have that authority under the Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but he will not have that authority, ironically, prior to that time. So, ironically, the authority that he requests after the CTBT goes into effect, which would exist at this point, does not exist in the interim period of time after September 30. He would not have the ability to test for the reasons that he indicated in his statement. All we are trying to do by this amendment is to continue the existing law to give him that authority and to require that he report to the Congress. We add one thing and one thing only. Congress has a right to disapprove of his action by a majority vote of both Houses of the Congress. We thought that was a good thing, not a bad thing, if people are concerned about the President. But this President, Bill Clinton, has said he needs the authority to test. We simply continue that authority until the CTBT takes effect. It would be ironic, indeed, for the President to request the authority after the CTBT goes into effect but not before then. The second point made by the Senator from Oregon is the same point that others have made. They wish that we did not have to debate this right now and have a vote on it prior to the 28th. I have said over and over again--I renew my offer to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and to the Senator from Nebraska--I would be delighted to have a vote on my amendment. If we do not table it here, we can have a vote on this amendment after those negotiations in Geneva are concluded. They are to be concluded in Geneva on the 29th, by Friday. By the time we vote on Friday it would be nighttime in Geneva. Therefore, I would be pleased to enter into a unanimous-consent agreement that our vote be postponed until that time. I do not know what more I can do to demonstrate that we are not trying to influence what is going on over there. I understand that is the argument that has been brought up. But I fail to appreciate why our offer is not going to be accepted as a result of that. I reserve the remainder of my time. Those are my comments with respect to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. KYL. Without any involvement by Congress or without any report. Under our amendment, Congress has the ability to say no, and the President would have to continue to submit a report to us and he would have to report to us on the necessity for an underground nuclear test. The requirement for the test would have to be based upon a stockpile stewardship issue--safety and reliability--rather than the mere fact that another nation decided to test, which obviously has no relationship to our stockpile.

Mr. KYL. I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am happy to yield whatever time the distinguished Senator from Idaho, a member of the Armed Services Committee, needs.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Jeff Bingaman, to offer an amendment which would, prohibit any department or agency of the federal government from issuing licenses for the collection and dissemination of satellite imagery with respect to Israel, or any other country or geographic area concerned that is routinely available from commercial sources. The amendment further prohibits the declassification or otherwise release of satellite imagery with respect to Israel, or to any other country or geographic area designated by the President for this purpose, unless such imagery is no more detailed or precise than satellite imagery of the country or geographic area concerned that is routinely available from commercial sources. This amendment is necessary, Mr. President, because on February 24, 1995, President William J. Clinton issued Executive Order 12951, which authorized the release of ``certain scientifically or environmentally useful imagery acquired by space-based national intelligence reconnaissance systems known as the Corona, Argon, and Lanyard missions.'' The Executive order is scheduled to come into effect 18 months after issuance, that is on August 24, 1996. This broadly written, and seemingly harmless, Executive order could unintentionally have a deleterious impact on the national security of the state of Israel. The Corona series of images contains spy-quality 2-meter resolution details of some of Israel's sensitive fixed target facilities, such as air bases and scientific installations. Enemies of Israel could use the photos released under Executive Order 12951 to target Israel for long-range attacks or assaults by terrorists. Mr. Presidents, in 1994 I was pleased to moderate an agreement between Orbcom, a private company seeking to sell high-resolution commercial satellite imagery, and supporters of Israel, which resulted in Orbcom volunteering not to image Israel. I applauded Orbcom's decision in 1994, and I applaud it again today, reflecting as it does a keen understanding that images of Israel represent a unique and potentially ominous threat to its national security. This is not precisely the same issue, but it is my hope that the executive branch will work out an agreement with Israel regarding the release of these photos. Unfortunately, to date, little progress has been made in the negotiations. I understand there will be those who oppose this action, claiming that the commercial market will be stifled. The Commerce Department claims that the Russians are today selling 2-meter resolution images. I know that the Russians have indicated a willingness to do this, but I have not seen any evidence that this has actually occurred. And France's policy is still to restrict French SPOT imagery to no less than 5-meter resolution. Rather than driving the market to even higher resolution imagery, I believe the United States should establish a memorandum of understanding with France and Russia regarding the type and quality of images to be released publicly. Without such an agreement, we may be creating risk where none exists today and potentially undermining the security of our friend and ally, Israel.