Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. These missiles are, unfortunately, becoming the weapon of choice of bullies in the world. Because they are relatively inexpensive, they can be used to great effect for blackmail purposes. The Iraqis demonstrated how even an errant launch, as the chairman of the committee noted in his eloquent opening statement, can cause great damage. Mr. President, 20 percent of all United States casualties in the Iraqi war were from one Scud missile attack, which killed 28 Americans with one missile, because we did not have the capability of defending against that. A question has been asked here, why now? Why are we so concerned about this now? Well, I did not realize until this morning, when radio reports carried the story, that it was 5 years ago today that Kuwait was invaded by Iraq. I think it is an anniversary worth reflecting on for a moment. One could easily ask what has changed, knowing that this kind of threat can materialize almost overnight; knowing that we need to be prepared to deal with it; knowing that 28 Americans at one time died from a Scud missile attack--20 percent of all of our casualties came from that--knowing of the destruction that the Scuds directed on the State of Israel; and knowing of our great concern about that, because we could not locate the missile. The only way we had to deal with it was to try to shoot it down, and finally, knowing after the fact that our Patriot missiles, designed to shoot down aircraft, not missiles, though pressed into action for that purpose, were really only effective to interdict about 30 percent of the Scuds that came their way. Knowing all of these things, one would imagine that 5 years later, we would have made great strides to protect ourselves against the threats that are posed. The fact of the matter is that virtually nothing has changed. Other than a slightly upgraded investigation of the Patriot missile, we do not have a missile defense. This is 5 years later, a period of time in which we should have been able to develop and deploy an effective missile defense against a weapon like the Scud. We have not done so. Just taking the theater context and forgetting for a moment the potential threat to the United States, it is clear that we have not adequately pursued a defense against this weapon of choice by the troublemaker nations of the world. We have not developed and deployed a new sensor. We have not developed and deployed a new missile. We have made some strides in the research, but part of the reason we have not done this is because there has been no clear national mandate, no clear national instruction, to get about the business of doing this. There are all kinds of reasons why. The fact of the matter is, we need to get on with the business of getting this done. That is why I compliment Senator Nunn and Senator Thurmond for much of what they have included in the bill this year. We have some small differences we will perhaps need to work on. One thing on which we can all agree at this beginning point of the debate is that there is a threat to be concerned about, and that we do need, as we begin this debate, to at least express the sense of this body that Americans need to be protected against an accidental or a limited ballistic missile attack. Mr. President, if we cannot agree on that, I suspect the American people would rightly question whether we are the body in which to repose confidence about their future security. I am confident that we can agree to this. Based upon that, we can make some sensible decisions about both the policy embodied in this year's defense bill and the expenditures inherent in the authorization bill. I look forward to working with the chairman, Senator Nunn, and other members of the committee, and other Members of this body, in working through this bill based on an understanding there is a threat to the United States from ballistic missile attack, and to our forces abroad, and our allies, and it is against this threat we should be protected. I hope when the time comes, Mr. President, my colleagues here will see fit to support the Kyl-Inhofe amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate. Amendment No. 2078 to Amendment No. 2077

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, these are not hypotheticals for other countries, other places in the world. This is the United States and our territory. The former Deputy Secretary of Defense says that they would potentially be at risk. We further find, in finding 11, that the end of the cold war has changed the strategic environment facing and between the United States and Russia. That the Clinton administration believes the environment to have changed was made clear by Secretary of Defense William Perry on September 20, 1994, when he stated: We now have the opportunity to create a new relationship, based not on MAD, not on Mutual Assured Destruction, but rather on another acronym, MAS, Mutual Assured Safety. The United States and Russia have the opportunity to create a relationship based on trust rather than fear. That is the final finding in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. As a result of all of these findings, these factors, of these statements made by the key representatives of this administration, it is the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack. Let me focus a moment on that simple one-sentence statement of what the sense of the Senate would be. We should be protected from accidental launch of ballistic missiles. I cannot think of anyone who would disagree with that sentiment. It does not take a star wars or a strategic defense initiative to protect against such an attack. We have the capability to develop, and ultimately deploy, a system which would provide that protection. Inherent within this bill is the beginnings of the development and deployment of such a system. It is the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from intentional ballistic missile attack. Obviously, if there is an intentional attack, we want to be protected from that. We mentioned the Taepo Dong 2 missile under development by the North Koreans. Should they decide to launch an attack against Alaska, for example, who among us would argue that we should not be prepared to meet that threat? Indeed, the mere threat that such an attack could be launched inhibits the conduct of our foreign policy because of the potential of blackmail by a country like North Korea. To digress a moment to further elaborate on this point, one of the reasons that we have such a difficult time dealing with North Korea today is that North Korea does pose an offensive threat to millions of South Koreans and thousands of American troops against which we have no real defense, because of the proximity of Seoul, Korea to the long- range artillery of North Korea, and because of the deployment of North Korean forces. It is very clear that if there were a North Korean attack or bombardment from their artillery, literally millions of South Koreans and thousands of Americans would be killed before the United States had an opportunity to respond. We simply do not have a defense against that kind of an attack, unless everybody from Seoul, Korea could move back about 30 miles. That is obviously not going to happen. Because of the nature of this threat, we are in a position to be blackmailed by North Korea. We cannot go in and deal with North Korea as we would like to because they do have a means of inflicting great harm and damage on us and on the people of South Korea. We literally have no way to stop it. The only way to respond to that is by some kind of massive military action that would hopefully roll them back. But the damage would already be done. That is the same thing with respect to missiles. A missile can be either used for blackmail in the conduct of one country's foreign policy, to push its weight around, or to actually launch against another country in a time of war, in order to either create chaos and inflict damage on civilian populations, or to be launched against military targets. And in order to prohibit that from inhibiting the conduct of our foreign policy, we have to have a way of defending against it. If you do have a way of defending against it, you can essentially say you can build the missiles if you want, deploy them if you want, but you cannot be effective in using them, so we are not going to be bullied. If you do not have an effective missile defense--and as I quoted, we do not--then we are susceptible to that negative influence of bullying by a country like North Korea. That is why it is important for us to have the means of defending ourselves and our allies, whether troops are deployed abroad, or whether it is the defense of the American homeland--in this case, Alaska--by a threat from the North Koreans. Finally, it would be the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from limited ballistic missile attack. The reason we state it that way, Mr. President, is because we are concerned here about a limited attack. We do not believe that there is currently existing a threat of massive, strategic attack of intercontinental ballistic missiles by a country such as Russia, and possibly China, which are the only countries today that could pose that kind of threat to the United States. We do not believe that circumstances warrant the development of a system that would provide a protection against such an attack. That is why there is no longer an effort to develop a strategic defense, such as was contemplated during the Reagan administration when the cold war was a very real threat to the United States, and when the Soviet Union then was quite belligerent with the United States, and when such a threat actually existed. That is what not we are trying to do. Now, that is why all we are saying here is that it is the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack. That is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Those are the findings. Let me finish my presentation with a couple of other quotations that I think would not necessarily be properly included within the findings, but which I think help to make the case that this is not some hypothetical, this is not something that only paranoid people are concerned about, it is something that at the highest councils in our Government, our intelligence, and the Defense Department, there is concern. The first reason is because it is not necessarily the development of an indigenous capability by a country that is of concern here. We are concerned about North Korea developing the missiles that could eventually reach the United States. As a matter of fact, the missile that could reach the United States is not even shown on this chart here which illustrates some of the other missiles that are in development, or already developed, and their capabilities. The CSS-2, for example, is a Chinese missile that has been sold to the Saudi Arabians. It has a range of about 3,000 kilometers. That obviously poses a threat to countries in the Middle East, as well as some European countries. It is not just the indigenous threat, but the possibility of a sale of one of these missiles to another country. I mention this missile, because this missile was sold by the Chinese to the Saudi Arabians. Saudi Arabians are obviously allies of the United States, and we do not fear that missile would be launched against us by this regime. We also did not fear during the regime of the Shah of Iran that Iran would ultimately be unfriendly to the United States. Of course, that is the situation that exists today. A country that acquires a weapon like this today, if there should be some instability or other circumstance that changes its government, obviously, it could effectively, and perhaps not in the long-distance future, pose a threat to the United States. We are first concerned about the indigenous threat, but second, we are concerned about a purchase. That is where the time element comes in. We can give an estimate of how long it takes a country like North Korea to develop a No Dong. It could be another 5 years to develop that. But they could sell a country with great capability in a matter of days or weeks, and the deployment could be a threat to us in a very short period of time. A third aspect, in addition to the indigenous development and the sale of missiles to be used for military purposes, is, of course, the sale of satellite launch capable missiles. This has been done throughout the world, as well. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the interchange of a satellite to be launched into space for weather prediction, for example, and a warhead of mass destruction, a chemical or biological warhead, or even a nuclear warhead in such a missile. These missiles are proliferating around the world. Even though they have a peaceful purpose, they can very quickly be used for military purposes, and therefore, for us to base predictions on the fact that an adversary of ours will take a long time to indigenously develop a weapon, again does not adequately and accurately state the intelligence threat to the United States. We have to be prepared to accept the fact that nations will buy either weapons or buy space launch capable missiles for use as weapons, and that can be done in a very short period of time. We only have to look at previous examples to know it has been done. As a matter of fact, Iraqi Scuds were purchased from another country and then modified by the Iraqis. It is not just the indigenous development but the purchase of the weapons and the purchase of satellite delivery missiles that also create part of the problem here. Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent that other material be printed in the Record at this point, and allow me to reach a conclusion of my statement in support of this amendment for a sense-of-the-Senate statement.

Mr. KYL. I know the Senator from Georgia is able to speak on his amendment. I can respond to each of the points that the Senator from North Dakota made in detail. But rather than doing that, I want to pose one quick question, because, frankly, it may not be necessary for us to do that. Is the Senator prepared to tell us whether he is going to vote against or for my amendment? If the Senator is going to vote for the amendment, I will not bother to respond to some of the points.

Mr. KYL. The Senator, obviously, has the right to vote for or against my amendment. I was curious. There is a lot that can be said. Perhaps the Senator could be thinking--I would like to hear from some of the other Senators--perhaps the Senator could be thinking how he will substantiate the claim he made repeatedly now that the Secretary of Defense does not want this, did not ask for it, and so on. If the Senator can find those statements, I would be curious because, of course, General O'Neill testified to the Armed Services Committee that he could spend $450 million and he does not do that without getting the concurrence of the administration. The administration's initial budget request did not ask for the money, I agree, but in last year's budget, the Clinton administration, in the 5-year defense plan, called for more than what is being requested----

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I just wanted to propose this amendment now, since the Senator from Oklahoma, the coauthor of this amendment, is making his opening statement now because perhaps some of the remarks he will make in his opening statement will also reflect on the amendment, which we want to be considered next. So I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. KYL. In response to the Senator's question, it is as you have noted. You are going to propose an amendment to strike $300 million that is already in the bill. My amendment does not add any money to the bill. My amendment simply expresses the sense of the Senate that all Americans deserve to be protected from missile attack. So when the Senator makes the argument about the $300 million, he is really making the argument in support of his amendment that is going to be offered later to the bill. That is why I said I could easily respond to some of the things you said, but I do not want to take the time if the Senator is going to end up supporting my amendment. I think we can move on----

Mr. KYL. And I say to the Senator, absolutely, bingo.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I would like to begin by complimenting both the chairman, Senator Thurmond, and Senator Nunn, for their work, and all the members of the Armed Services Committee for presenting a very good bill to the Senate this year. I do not have the honor of serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I did serve on the House Armed Services Committee for 8 years. Frankly, I am very pleased with the product that has come out of the committee this year. I, second, want to associate myself with the remarks the Senator from Oklahoma just made. I believe they help to set the stage for a good debate on what we need to do to provide for the defense of the United States. Third, Madam President, I want to begin a discussion of the amendment which Senator Inhofe and I have laid down and which I think deals with one of the key parts of the bill that has been presented this year. It is the issue of missile proliferation, and the question of what the United States ought to do about it. Given the fact that there is some difference of opinion about exactly what the nature of the threat is and when we ought to begin to deal with that threat, it seemed to Senator Inhofe and me that we should add something to the bill in the way of findings and a sense of the Senate which expresses our belief that the American people should be defended from ballistic missile attack. There are very fine findings currently in the bill. We all agree that those findings are a proper predicate for what follows in the bill. But we also believe that there are some other things that should be added as findings and that the Senate should go on record expressing its sense that Americans should be protected from either accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack. Madam President, let me read the portions of the findings of the amendment which we believe help to lay the predicate for further action the Senate will be taking with respect to the protection of American people from ballistic missile attack. We say, first of all, that the Senate finds the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles present a threat to the entire world. This threat was recognized by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry in February of this year in the annual report to the President and the Congress, which states: Beyond the five declared nuclear weapon states, at least 20 other nations have acquired, or are attempting to acquire, weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, and the means to deliver them. In fact, in most areas where the United States forces could potentially be engaged on a large scale, many of the most likely adversaries already possess chemical and biological weapons. Moreover, some of these same states appear determined to acquire nuclear weapons. We think this is an important finding because of this question that has been posed: Why should we be preparing some of the things that we are preparing now? Why should we be testing and developing capable theater missile defenses and beginning to plan for the day when we would develop and eventually deploy a national missile defense system? It is because of the concern that has been expressed in this year's report to the President and Congress by the Secretary of Defense, among others. Also, recently, in May of this year, at the summit in Moscow, President Clinton and President Yeltsin commented on this threat in a joint statement which recognizes: . . . The threat posed by worldwide proliferation of missiles and missile technology and the necessity of counteracting this threat. At least 25 countries may be developing weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems for such weapons. We further find that at least 24 countries have chemical weapons programs in various stages of research and development. Approximately 10 countries are believed to have biological weapons programs in various stages of development. And, finally, at least 10 countries are reportedly interested in the development of nuclear weapons. Several countries recognize that weapons of mass destruction and missiles increase their ability to deter, coerce or threaten the United States Saddam Hussein recognized this when he stated on May 8, 1990: Our missiles cannot reach Washington. If they could reach Washington, we would strike it if the need arose. Madam President, we further find in the preliminary findings to the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that international regimes like the nonproliferation treaty, biological weapons convention and the missile technology control regime, while effective, cannot by themselves halt the spread of weapons and technology. On January 10, 1995, Director of the CIA, James Woolsey, said, with regard to Russia: We are particularly concerned with the safety of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as highly enriched uranium or plutonium, although I want to stress this is a global problem. For example, highly enriched uranium was recently stolen from South Africa, and last month Czech authorities recovered 3 kilograms of 87.8 percent-enriched uranium in the Czech Republic--the larger seizure of near- weapons-grade material to date outside the former Soviet Union. That is former CIA Director James Woolsey. We further find in this resolution that the possession of weapons of mass destruction and missiles by developing countries threatens our friends, allies, and forces abroad, and will ultimately threaten the United States directly. On August 11, 1994, Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Deutch, now Director of the CIA said: If the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong 2 missile, Guam, Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk. (Mr. THOMPSON assumed the chair.)

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 2 p.m., under the same terms and conditions as before.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to compliment the Senator from Ohio on that very moving and fine presentation, particularly this week when we are honoring the Americans who fought in Korea in a far-away place but, as the Senator pointed out, a place that will always be in the memory of Americans for the sacrifice of so many of our troops from all of the services. I might note to the Senator from Ohio that I received some time ago a gift, a small gift but a very meaningful gift, from a survivor of Chosin. It is a belt buckle to be worn on a western belt, and that is what I always remember when I wear that belt. It reminds me always of the sacrifices that were made by those at Chosin, and it is something we should never forget. Certainly the Korean War Memorial will now help us to remember that very fine hour in American history despite the casualties, the suffering and sorrow that attend it. So I compliment the Senator from Ohio on his very fine remarks.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to address a defense subject, given the fact that the Senate is likely to take up the defense authorization bill next week. I am going to include in my remarks a reference to North Korea. So, in a sense, the comments of the Senator from Ohio and all of those who have remarked on the sacrifices of Americans in Korea now 40 years ago, 45 years ago in some cases, have a bearing on what we are doing with our national defenses today and some of the issues we will be debating in connection with the defense authorization bill. Specifically, what I wish to address for a few minutes today is the implication of a recent CIA report which warned us that about 20 nations by the end of this century will have the capability to deliver a weapon of mass destruction far beyond their borders through the missile delivery system, a ballistic missile delivery system that is either being indigenously produced in these countries or is being acquired by purchase from another nation and that that threat is a very real one not only for U.S. forces deployed abroad but also for our allies and eventually, not too long after the turn of the century, for the continental United States itself. In the Persian Gulf war, fully 20 percent of the United States casualties were as a direct result of the Scud missile attacks by the Iraqis. As a matter of fact, the single largest number of American casualties was 28 in one Scud missile attack on a barracks in Saudi Arabia. So this is not a threat that is hypothetical or in the future. It has already occurred to American troops in this decade. And yet too many have been blind to the reality that this is an emerging threat, that the ballistic missile with a warhead of mass destruction, either nuclear, chemical, or biological or even high explosives, is the weapon of choice of the dictators and would-be aggressors around the world today. Fully half of those 20 nations that the CIA report refers to are either in the Middle East or in Southeast Asia, and clearly our interests and our allies' interests are implicated in those regions of the world. North Korea is a good case in point, particularly since our focus has been on Korea this week. One of the reasons that our policy with respect to North Korea has been so touchy, so tentative is because North Korea today possesses a very real threat to literally millions of South Koreans and several thousand Americans in Korea. Today, in just a matter of hours, North Korea could kill thousands of people in Seoul, Korea, because that is how close Seoul is to the reach of the North Korean guns, their long artillery. Ballistic missiles are simply a much more robust system than long artillery, and the impact can, of course, be much more devastating, but the analogy is very true. One of the reasons that we are not tougher on North Korea today, that we cannot dictate the terms to North Korea, that we cannot tell them to stop producing weapons grade plutonium for the development of nuclear weapons is because we do not have leverage over North Korea. We cannot threaten them militarily, and as a matter of fact we are susceptible to a North Korean attack. We have no means of stopping the artillery from North Korea, the kind of attack that would occur on Seoul and that would also cause casualties to American troops in South Korea. What it tells us is that in the conduct of foreign policy we cannot be held hostage to foreign powers. We cannot allow ourselves to be defenseless against the weapons they would deploy against us or else we are neutralized in the conduct of our foreign policy, and that is what has largely happened with respect to North Korea. It will be orders of magnitude worse if and when North Korea obtains the kind of long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction it is working on today. North Korea is one of those nations that is indigenously producing longer range ballistic missiles, and public reports assert that shortly after the turn of the century one of those missiles will even be able to reach the continental United States, specifically the State of Alaska. It does not take any reach of the imagination to predict what would happen if North Korea threatened Anchorage, AK, let us say, or one of our military bases in Alaska with a nuclear weapon if we did not do a certain thing or forbear from doing something that [[Page S 10867]] was in the interest of North Korea. And yet the question is what would we do about it, because we have no means of stopping that kind of attack. It used to be that the threat of mutual assured destruction with the former Soviet Union was enough to deter attack by either nation because the thought of either nation sending everything it had against the other nation was simply too horrible to contemplate and neither nation was foolish enough to do that. But today the threat of mutual assured destruction does not work against these tinhorn dictators in countries like Iraq or Iran or Syria or North Korea and similar places, Libya--I will not extend the list--because of the characterized kind of leadership of those countries. But the fact is they have not been friends of the United States; they have been antagonistic in the past. They have either now or are developing these systems and therefore are likely troublemakers in the near future. To be defenseless against them is to deny our responsibility. Fortunately, we have it in our capability to begin developing the kind of defenses that would render these threats essentially meaningless and prevent us from being subjected to the blackmail that those threats certainly will entail in the future and hopefully deter attacks that, of course, would cause casualties either to our allies or our forces deployed abroad and eventually to the continental United States. Both the House and Senate Defense authorization bills begin to get us back on track to the development and deployment of effective theater ballistic missile systems and do the work that will eventually enable us to deploy an effective national defense system, that is, a system that would prevent attacks on the United States. And so it is important for us, as we begin to debate this subject next week, to focus on what the Armed Services Committee will be recommending and why we should not adopt some of the amendments that we know are going to be proposed that would weaken what the Armed Services Committee has recommended with respect to the development and deployment of these theater ballistic missile systems. In the past, Mr. President, there have been attempts to reduce the funding. Well, this year's funding level, I will note, is less than the Clinton administration's recommendation for this year in the 5-year plan that was submitted last year. So I hope we will not see attempts to decrease the funding for ballistic missile defenses. There is also a question about dumbing down our systems. The Patriot missile was not as effective as it might have been in the Persian Gulf because it had earlier been dumbed down. We did not make it as effective as we could have. There is a belief today that because the Russians would not like to see a robust defense, a defense that might even prepare the way for an effective defense against missiles they might send our way someday, therefore we are going to arbitrarily limit ourselves so that the systems will not be as effective as they might be. One of the arguments will be, if we make them as effective as they could be, they might violate the ABM Treaty. This bill which will come to the floor next week has definitions built into it that clearly permit us to test in a certain mode, and if we test beyond that mode, it would be deemed testing against a strategic system, which presumably would be in violation of the ABM Treaty, and so we will not do that. But if we try to add additional requirements such as speed limits on American missiles, making them not as effective as they might otherwise be, we will be dumbing down our system, making it less capable than it should be, than it needs to be. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject any amendments along that line. Finally, what we have done, since eventually there could be questions about whether a national system should have one or more sites to protect the continental United States, we have established a committee which will advise the Senate and the administration on what areas of the ABM Treaty we may wish to modify in order to deploy an effective system to defend the United States. The treaty only allows for one system today. We may need to deploy in more than one place. Surely, if that is in the United States national interest, we would seek to modify the treaty and ask the Russians to agree to that with us. We are not violating the treaty; we are simply preparing for the day when we may ask for changes to be made. The treaty is almost 25 years old and clearly was developed at a time when the Cold War was at its height and when the United States and Russia, or the Soviet Union, I should say, were depending on the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. That does not exist today. As so many of our colleagues are fond of reminding us, the Cold War is over. Of course, it is over. We have to begin to think about the kind of defense we will need in the next century rather than focusing on a treaty that may have served us well in the past, though that is subject to some debate, but certainly does not provide all the things that we need or the only things that we need to protect us in the future. So I hope that our colleagues will be agreeable to going forward with the study committee that is established in the Armed Services Committee mark that will come to the floor. I hope that they will believe that is a good idea and will go forward with that study. Let me conclude by saying that I believe what the Armed Services Committee will be recommending to us will make a lot of sense; that it will begin to put us on the path to developing and ultimately deploying an effective theater ballistic missile defense, a system that will protect us if we have troops deployed in Korea or in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the world, a system that will protect our allies to the extent they wish to be protected. That is something the United States wants to cooperate in and ultimately a system that can be added to and modified to protect even the continental United States. Surveys show that Americans today overwhelmingly believe that if a missile were launched against the United States, that we would be able to somehow intercept it either by some airplane-fired missile or some other missile we could fire or something in space. We know, of course, that is not true. We have absolutely no defense against a missile fired against us, whether by accident or in anger, whether by a terrorist nation that only has one or two missiles, or whether as in an attack by a country like the former Soviet Union. It is time to start thinking how to deal with that threat today. It takes a long time to develop the systems to meet that kind of threat. That is why this bill begins to put us on the track that will enable us to defend ourselves, as well as our interests abroad, and it is a bill which will be deserving of our support. I will be talking more about the bill and its specifics as we come to the floor to debate it, but I wanted to at least outline those concerns to my colleagues today. Mr. President, those conclude my remarks about the defense bill before us next week.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about the gift ban, which we will be going to shortly, because there will not be adequate time to describe our feelings with respect to this and, therefore, I thought I would take a moment right now. It seems to me we need to act, we need to act fairly quickly in order to improve the law that deals with the kind of gifts that Members of the Senate can receive. There are three particular reasons why we need to do this. In the first place, undue influence is a factor. While I cannot think of a situation in which a Senator's vote has been bought by a lobbyist, the fact of the matter is that taking gifts creates undue influence. It needs to stop. I think reforms in this area will stop it. Second, there is a perception in the public that the Senate takes a lot of gifts. While it is not necessarily true, the fact any gifts are received helps to contribute to that perception. We need to deal with that perception problem and not taking gifts, or at least any kind of significant gifts, will help deal with that. And third, taking things because of our position becomes a way of life for some Members. In some cases, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. A very elderly Indian woman who had been standing at a meeting for over 1 hour out in very cold temperatures in northern Arizona one day when I was finished, and when I began to walk away, slipped a ring, a turquoise ring into my hand and then quickly melted away into the crowd. I understood the significance of that, and I will never forget that as an expression on her part of appreciation of what I was attempting to do and nothing more than that. So some gifts can be very touching, and they are as important to the giver as they are to the receiver. [[Page S 10774]] By the same token, some gifts become a way of life. I am going to step on some of my colleagues' toes when I say this, but, frankly, there are things permitted by the rules today that we simply ought not to permit. The legislation that is being crafted now, I hope, will prevent this kind of activity from occurring and, as a result, will deal both with the problem of undue influence and the problem of public perception. I speak of one example, and that is attendance at charity events. Mr. President, you know charities love to have us in attendance. They love to put our names on the invitation list, on the honorary committee. It lends credence and credibility. We all support charities in that way. We will attend the dinner to lend our support and attend the charitable event. Obviously, the group will many times ask us to come as a guest of theirs. We do that and we do it willingly and, obviously, that does not buy anything in terms of votes. That would continue to be permitted. But the other kind of participation in charitable events is not so benign. That is the charitable golf tournament or other things as well, but I will use the golf tournaments. As I say, I will step on some people's toes. The fact of the matter is, when someone flies us a couple of thousand miles away to a resort community to play golf because our presence there somehow makes it a more attractive event for the people who are paying money to attend but we get the free evening and the meal and the drinks and all the rest of it and the free golf game and, frequently, a free putter, whatever, that goes beyond simply lending our name and presence to an event that has a charitable purpose. I think it is wrong and, therefore, I support the kind of reform which would preclude us from accepting recreational benefits in conjunction with our participation in these kinds of charitable events. Again, Mr. President, I am just singling out this one example to illustrate the difference between the kind of things that have historically been felt to be OK and we do not think anyone would criticize us for doing, supporting a charity, and, on the other hand, those kinds of things which have crept into the Senate business over time to give us benefits that the general public does not have. Most people do not get invited to charitable events and given a free putter and a free trip and free meals and, most important, the free golf game. The tee costs of this are significant. So the rule I support says if you want to participate in a charitable event, be our guest, but you have to get there on your own and you have to pay your own costs for participating; they cannot give that to you. If they want you to attend the dinner with them, fine, but you cannot go there for the purpose of getting some benefit that ordinarily people do not get, such as a free golf game and a free trip to a resort community. That is the kind of thing which, frankly, gives us a bad name, and it may or may not, in some cases, lead to the argument that there has been undue influence created as a result of the people who are actually paying for the event. So, Mr. President, I think my time has expired. I simply want to begin this debate by saying we will have some tough choices, but we have to enact reforms. It is the only way that we will prevent undue influence, on the one hand, and, second, end some of the perception problems that the Senate has, and at the end of the day our Government can exist and function only so long as the people have confidence in it, and that means confidence in the people who represent them. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, since I will be taking the chair in 5 minutes, I will confine my remarks. Let me begin by complimenting the majority leader with his very fine remarks just delivered with respect to the Korean War Memorial. He spoke eloquently, and I think his remarks really typify what all of us remember and feel now about that war and the people who represented our country in that conflict. I want to compliment the majority leader on what he has just said.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain amendment. I served in the U.S. House of Representatives on the Ethics Committee. In that capacity, I came to see situations develop, over time, which were very difficult to deal with, to understand why a Member would have gotten into trouble, to try to deal with the gray areas that sometimes attend the rules under which we try to do our business. It is one of the experiences which caused me to support the efforts of John McCain and others to try to bring this into a document, to codify it so [[Page S 10801]] that Members would know what was appropriate and what was not--at least what we allowed and would not allow by our rules. That is why I think this is a very useful exercise. I want to compliment my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, for his efforts in this regard. I heard him give a speech one night about duty, honor, and country. It was the ``honor'' part that has motivated John McCain throughout his career, and it is what motivates all Members here tonight, to try to develop a code of conduct under which we cannot only operate free from allegations that undue influence has been brought to bear upon us, but to operate in a way that the American people accept as appropriate to the high office which they have entrusted to Members. In our Government, if the people do not have confidence in their representatives, the Government and the people are not well served, because the people, then, end up distrusting the very people they have asked to make decisions for them, to represent them. A democracy, I suggest, could not long exist in that situation. It is up to the Members to earn the public trust. To do that, we have to conduct ourselves in a way that is above reproach. That is what the stronger ethics rules would provide, to make it crystal clear that there is certain conduct that simply is not acceptable. Much of it focuses on the acceptance of gifts, because the public does not understand why, simply because we were elected to an office, that we are somehow entitled to receive gifts. These rules will not prohibit Members from enjoying friendship with those who are our friends, from having a meal with a friend. However, it will prevent Members from being feted with gifts which we all know are really designed to achieve one purpose, and that is for the people who have business with the Congress, to gain our ear. We are not talking about the kind of gifts that we know are given from the heart, when the 4-H kids come in and want to give Members a cup. We all accept that proudly. It would be horrible if we could not accept that which the kids are proffering. It means a lot to them, so it means a lot to the Members. That is not what we are talking about. When lobbyists invite Members someplace and want to treat Members to rounds of golf and those sort of things, even though we may justify it or rationalize it, the fact is, it is not good. We are not entitled to be feted in this fashion just because we were elected to public office. And it looks bad. Is it any wonder that the people lose confidence in Members? That is the kind of thing that these rules are designed to stop. Most Members realize in our hearts the difference between those things that we can accept and not have it affect what we do here in any way, on the one hand; yet, on the other hand, those kinds of things that are the subtle, little attempts to influence Members or do favors for Members just because of who we are, by people who want to influence our actions. We understand those differences. Therefore, we can make these rules work in a way that will make our constituents pleased with their representatives. That is what is behind this legislation. Again, I want to compliment all of those, both on the Republican side and on the Democratic side of the aisle, for their willingness to compromise. Finally, Mr. President, I want to take 30 seconds to compliment Senator Mitch McConnell. He is chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee. Because of his strong leadership, we have been able to bring together all of the disparate elements, to come together to a compromise. Without that capability, I do not think we would have compromised. My hat is off to the chairman of the Ethics Committee, and to the sponsor of this bill, Senator McCain. I think tonight and tomorrow, Mr. President, the Senate is going to do the right thing in adopting the McCain amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, 5 minutes.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to strongly support the Dole-Lieberman resolution. It is frustrating for all because the moral imperatives here demand action, yet as has been noted by all of the other speakers, all actions are fraught with problems. We all agree there are no good options. We all agree that lifting the arms embargo is not a panacea, but it will enable the Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves, which is their right under article 51 of the United Nations charter. It may hasten the day when the Serbs cease their aggression. Ever since the United Nations extended diplomatic recognition to Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992, I have believed that the United Nations should either act to get the United Nations to lift the 1991 embargo, or unilaterally lift that embargo to make it easier for the Moslem communities to defend themselves. We all know that the Bosnian Serbs have an arsenal of weapons which they obtained largely from the Yugoslavian Army, also from Romania, the Soviet Union and other sources. In Afghanistan, Cambodia, Nicaragua, and with the Kurds in Iraq, the United States helped those defending their families and territory to acquire the weapons to defend themselves. This situation is no different, Mr. President. That is why I support lifting the arms embargo. While some negative consequences could result from lifting the arms embargo, it cannot be worse for the Bosnian Moslems than the death of 200,000 civilians, perhaps thousands of women raped, 2 million people left homeless, and the loss of 70 percent of their territory. Albert Wohlsetter pointed out in an editorial entitled ``Genocide by Embargo,'' ``adherence to Security Council Resolution 727, even after the United Nations, European Community and the United States has recognized the independent status of the states of the former Yugoslavia, is a violation of article 51 of the U.N. Charter which acknowledges the right of self-defense.'' He says ``The United States should now simply declare that there is no valid embargo on the sovereign nations who are the victims of continuing Serbian genocide.'' Mr. President, shortly we will be voting on two amendments which seek to involve the United Nations. Of course, if the United Nations could quickly lift the arms embargo, that would be the best result. These amendments should not interpose between U.S. action immediately and lifting of the arms embargo by the rest of the world communities any requirements that would delay U.S. action. That is why I believe we should first pass the Dole-Lieberman resolution which commits the United States to action, not dependent on what anyone else does. As former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher wrote in her recent letter to Senator Dole, ``American leadership is vital to bring order out of the present chaos. No country must be allowed to veto the action required to end the present catastrophe.''

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I may indicate to the Senator from Virginia, I would be happy to have 5 minutes reserved for my comments.

Mr. KYL. I will do my best.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is difficult to believe that the solution to U.S. air pollution and dependence on foreign oil could be solved by the most abundant element in the universe--hydrogen. Yet we know that hydrogen can fuel our cars and cool our homes while producing water as its only byproduct. We know that this is possible through research conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to extract hydrogen from water in large enough quantities or at a low enough cost to make it a viable fuel alternative in the United States. While the Department of Energy has researched hydrogen as an alternative fuel for the last 5 years, the Governments of Japan, Germany, and Canada, where hydrogen-powered buses already run in Vancouver, have out-spent and out-researched us. The United States is already purchasing hydrogen fuel cells from Canada because they are not produced here. By implementing the Hydrogen Future Act and increasing our funding for hydrogen research, we will remain competitive with other countries and will increase the likelihood that we will develop a nonpolluting alternative fuel which will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and energy products. This bill would make hydrogen research a priority without increasing spending for research and development within the Department of Energy. It would also require non-Federal sources to pay for at least 25 percent of the research program costs and 50 percent of the costs directly related to any research development or demonstration project. As I said before, we already know hydrogen can act as a power carrier. We already know our major international competitors are seriously researching its possibilities. We need to know how to produce it in larger quantities and at a reasonable cost, and that is why the Senate needs to pass the Hydrogen Future Act.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, unless the Senator from Kentucky has something, I would like to speak to this amendment.

Mr. KYL. I plan to take about 3 minutes to speak in favor of this amendment. If the Senator would prefer to speak now, or I can go ahead.

Mr. KYL. I, too, hope this amendment can be agreed to. It has been pointed out there are ways around it, and that is certainly a possibility, should the amendment be adopted. But it seems to me that, if we adopt this amendment, we will have made a statement that we want people to divide their operations if, in fact, that is what they choose to do. They cannot be using the same operation, in effect, for both purposes. It is their right to divide the operation, to do lobbying with one and to have the 501(c)(3) with the other, and that is a possibility. But we would at least be on record as expressing our desire that Federal funds should not be used for lobbying. That is why I support the amendment, and I want to just express a couple of other reasons why. It has been pointed out that there is a great deal of grant money that has been going to these taxpayer subsidized lobbying organizations, or I should say special interest organizations who also lobby. Mr. President, at least $39 billion in Federal grant money was distributed to more than 40,000 organizations in 1990 alone, the last year for which I have figures. That is money that Congress supposedly appropriated to help address important national needs. Some of the organizations are ones that I have had an affiliation with. The American Bar Association, for example, received $2.2 million in Federal grants between July 1993 and June 1994 for such activities as missing children's assistance; aging programs; justice research; development and evaluation; and child welfare research and demonstration. The American Association of Retired Persons received about $84.7 million over the same period for the senior environmental employment program and the senior community service employment program. The AFL-CIO received $2 million. The National Council of Senior Citizens received $71.5 million or about 96 percent of its entire budget from the Federal Government. The problem, as has been noted, Mr. President, is that once a Federal grant reaches the organizations' bank account, it simply frees up additional dollars for the groups to spend on lobbying activities. Many of the organizations are on Capitol Hill every day, often lobbying for more taxpayer money on one program or another. Congress has not only been filling the trough, but paying these groups to feed there. AARP, for example, has been lobbying strenuously against Medicare reform. The American Bar Association staged a protest on Flag Day against the proposed constitutional amendment to protect the flag. CARE, another organization that receives Federal funds, has been lobbying against cuts in foreign aid. That is all fine. It is their right. Each one of those groups is entitled to its views, but none has the right to use taxpayer dollars to underwrite its lobbying activities. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Regan versus Taxation with Representation, ruled unanimously in 1983 that the Federal Government ``is not required by the first amendment to subsidize lobbying.'' The Court went on to say, ``we again reject the notion that first amendment rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.'' Thomas Jefferson said it best 200 years ago: ``to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' The amendment directly prohibits any recipient of a Federal grant from spending those grant funds on political advocacy. I think we can all agree that is appropriate. And because money is fungible, it also sets limits on the amount of political advocacy that a grantee can perform with nongrant funds. This amendment is not about free speech, or the right of any organization to petition the Government. Everyone is free to say what he wants. Every group is entitled to express its views to Government officials. What these groups are not entitled to is a subsidy from taxpayers to do that. No American should be taxed to advance the political agenda of an organization that he or she may have no wish to support or one that advocates an agenda he strongly opposes. Subsidies for political advocacy are wrong. There is another issue besides lobbying at stake here. When a group asks for Federal funds to conduct a certain activity--whether it is the YMCA to serve the needs of our Nation's youth, the World Wildlife Fund to protect the environment, or the National Council of Senior Citizens to help older Americans--we should expect that the group puts the funds to the intended use. When dollars are commingled and spent in lobbying, it is the every people we want to help that are hurt most. Every dollar that an organization pays a lobbyist is a dollar that could have been used to help a hungry child, someone who is homeless, or in need. If an organization would rather lobby the Government than serve the needs of the people, it should be frank about, it, refuse Federal funds, and go on about its business. We can find another organization that will devote the resources toward the intended purpose. Mr. President, cutting aid to lobbyists should be the easiest cut we make in Federal spending. We should certainly eliminate it before considering any reductions in aid to the people these lobbyists purport to represent--children, the elderly, the needy, and the environment, to name just a few. It is time to cut off Federal funding for political advocacy by select groups. It's time to let special interests raise their own funds to promote their points of view. This amendment will do that, if not totally, 100 percent, at least in a way that sends the message that Congress wants to send on this important issue.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield my time. I have concluded my remarks. If the Senators would like to take it at this point.