John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I speak today on an issue of great importance to copyright law and to the continued growth of electronic commerce on the Internet. In December 1996, two treaties were adopted by the diplomatic conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO] to update international copyright law. These treaties would extend international copyright law into the digital environment, including the Internet. However, these treaties do not provide a comprehensive response to the many copyright issues raised by the flourishing of the Internet and the promise of digital technology. We must endeavor to keep the scales of copyright law balanced, providing important protections to creators of content, while ensuring their widespread distribution. To begin the discussion I am introducing today the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997. Any discussion of this issue, even in the most simple terms, raises many important issues. We must foster the growth of the Internet, which provides such great opportunity to our country because it is the most participatory form of mass communication ever developed. It draws people together from all corners of the globe to share and communicate on an unprecedented level, and brings all levels of government closer to the public. The Internet also holds great promise for education. Students--rural, suburban, and urban--are increasingly able to access a wealth of information right at their computer that was previously beyond their reach. In addition, the Internet offers significant commercial possibilities. Small businesses can reach out across the globe and conquer the distances between them and potential customers. Individuals can view merchandise and make purchases without leaving home. Hopefully, soon a system will develop to allow individuals to contract electronically with traditional force of law for contracts on paper. However, this potential will never be realized without a system that fairly protects the interests of those who own copyrighted material; those who deliver that material via the Internet; and individual users. The implications here are far-reaching, with impacts that touch individual users, companies, libraries, universities, teachers and students. The legislation I am introducing today would accomplish several goals. First, the legislation would clarify the extent of liability for entities who transfer information via the Internet without control of the content. Second, the bill would provide for a rapid response to copyright infringement with the cooperation of the copyright owner and the on-line service to take down the infringing material, helping to curtail piracy. Third, the Act will provide for the use of digital technology in education, research, and library archives, including updating the fair use doctrine for electronic media. Fourth, the legislation provides a standard for liability based on individual conduct, not a standard that constrains the development of new technology. We must confirm that the entities who facilitate the operation of the global information infrastructure not be unfairly liable for literally billions of transmissions that individual users send via the Internet or post on the World Wide Web every week. We cannot make the Internet too costly to operate. Liability for infringement of copyright should reflect the degree of control that any party had in the determination of the content of the offending message. Those providing the infrastructure that makes the Internet possible should not be held liable for the content of messages to which they have no access. Often, the copyright holders will be best situated to make a determination of whether their copyrighted material is being infringed. In addition, two very real considerations in the final outcome are the capabilities and limits of current technology. It is not possible to monitor every communication on the Internet, not even to look at every homepage on the World Wide Web, even if it were desirable. In January 1997, one estimate put the number of Internet hosts at more than 16 million. Each could host multiple homepages, and those individual sites could be composed of multiple individual pages. One individual host, GeoCities, boasts of more than half a million homesteaders, with 5,000 new residents arriving daily. As of May 1997 there were more than 40 million people on the Web, a breathtaking increase from the 1 million in December 1994. To state the facts of the exploding traffic growth in a different way, one major infrastructure provider, of which there are many, reports traffic of 250 terabytes a month--a terabyte is a thousand billion bytes--which translates into almost six billion bytes a minute--for one carrier. More importantly, any wholesale reading of messages would constitute the largest full scale attack on our individual privacy ever undertaken. We are confident that those delivering the mail do not read our sealed letters and we should have that same confidence in our e-mail and other electronic communications. It would be impossible for any carrier to review all of the material; and we cannot create a legal obligation that is technologically impossible to satisfy. Clearly, the potential for copyright infringement is real--as real as the impossibility of requiring a service provider to monitor every communication, including e-mail, homepages, and chat rooms. Another important issue is the right of reproduction as specifically related to ephemeral copying. As a message is sent through cyberspace copies of the message are reproduced, in a sense. This is a reality of computer technology. For the most part an entire copy never exists anywhere, except at the points of distribution and receipt. The Internet was designed to send packets, pieces of a message expressed in digital form, a full message is not sent from one point to another. In the process of delivering the message multiple copies of each packet are sent so if a path is blocked path or data lost, the end message can be totally reassembled. Additionally, a full copy may be assembled on the recipient's server, where the message would reside until the recipient pulls down the file, or a copy may be made on a user's hard drive during the simple act of reading a document on-line. Obviously, to make this sort of copy illegal would be a move that flies in the face of the operations of the Internet and would destroy the World Wide Web. We need to make clear the status of these temporary and necessary copies within communications networks. The passage of appropriate copyright legislation goes beyond the implications of liability and technical operations. The outcome of this debate will affect educators and students across the country. One important aspect for education is to guarantee that computers can be used in distance learning, in a way that television and video recorders have been used for years. The copyright laws have long recognized the need to ensure that the copyright laws do not stand in the way of the opportunities that the technology promises to provide students in rural areas. Unfortunately, the current law reflects the technology that was current when it was passed, largely video. We need to update these laws to reflect the enormous potential of the digital era. Part of the work in this area may include defining the classroom to reflect that in many instances the classroom is no longer a physical space. In addition, the fair use doctrine in the Copyright Act should be amended to make clear that fair use applies regardless of the manner in which the material is distributed. A sound fair use doctrine is critical to continued interoperability of various systems, which in effect allows the Internet to exist and grow. Fair use encourages others to build freely on the ideas and information in a work while guaranteeing the author's right to their original expression. Currently, fair use may be made of a work for teaching, commentary, research, scholarship, criticism, and even news reporting. We should not tolerate discriminatory treatment based on a means of distribution or an alternative technology. Fair use in one medium should be fair use in another. Finally, we must facilitate the preservation of copyrighted materials by libraries, archives, and universities. These institutions should be able to preserve their works, many of which represent the cultural heritage of the United States, in the best means possible, including digitally. To require that these institutions purchase new copies of existing works, but in digital format, could cost untold billions of dollars. Many works could never be made available digitally as they are no longer available in a format available for purchase. Mr. President, we have made an effort to provide access to technology to all students in the last couple of years. In 1996, Congress appropriated $200 million to provide teachers with the training and support needed for access to technology, and to ensure that effective software and on-line resources would be available for use with the curriculum. The fiscal year 1998 budget request from the administration for this program is $425 million, with the House Appropriations Committee approving $460 million. Approving nearly $700 million over 2 years to guarantee that education can be delivered in a digital format, while impeding or denying delivery of digital material by neglecting our copyright law makes no sense. A decision has been made that students must prepare to operate in an on-line world. We must unlock the teaching potential of the Internet and we must now guarantee that the appropriate material is made available, so that our students can receive a full education while taking advantage of the tremendous strides made in technology. The Missouri State Librarian recently wrote to me that Missouri's strong distance education programs could flourish or wither, depending on the outcome of this debate. I suspect this is the case in all States with strong distance learning programs to serve rural areas. These programs allow residents in even the most remote areas to have the same access to education as those who live near schools, colleges, or universities. These programs cannot operate as effectively without the assurance that educators can use materials over computer networks. Equally important, Mr. President, we must begin a process internationally that is structured to balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs and technological limitations of those who enable the distribution of the electronic information, and with the rights and needs of individual end users. The current treaties and statements are not sufficient, and include some language that could create legal uncertainty. The loose language could lead to law that ignores technical realities, blindly shifts liability and ignores serious issues. The language must be clarified through the enactment of legislation in conjunction with the Senate's ratification of the treaties. Moreover, some of the proposed treaty implementation language attempts to attack copyright violations from the position of the technology that may be used, rather than placing the blame on those who are infringing the copyright. We cannot legislate technology. Just as we have seen the legislated 56-bit encryption become obsolete so too will any technology frozen in place by legislation. We must end policies of the Government that hinder technology, but, more importantly we must not initiate new policies that express an inherent fear of new technology. We must recognize other realities. Scores of software programs are illegally copied on-line, and intellectual piracy is an issue. However, some of this problem relates to the failure of the law, particularly copyright law, to keep up with the swift advance of technology. In a digital environment, hundreds of copies can be made and distributed in the blink of an eye. These copies are reproductions; they are perfect recreations of the original. The speed with which copies can be made makes the traditional ways of enforcing the copyright laws--a court order--obsolete. Copyright laws must evolve to embrace the new medium of digital storage and transmission. Those who provide the content for the Internet need some assurance that their valuable work will not become worthless because piracy. The approach in the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997 requires that service providers cooperate with content providers by taking action after they are notified that illegal material is posted, or being transmitted on their systems. The benefits to copyright holders are notable. A copyright owner will be able to stop the illegal distribution of the material quickly without having to use the courts as a first measure. This approach solves the largest problem for on- line piracy, by providing a quick response to illegal activity which will preserve the value of the material. Mr. President, one of the many important values held in this country is the freedom of expression. The United States must continue to be a leader in the preservation of freedom of expression around the world. Many countries are looking to the United States to be a leader on these important issues. We have the opportunity to send a strong message internationally that copyright law must be revised to fit the realities of a digital environment, and that by doing so we can encourage the growth and evolution of the Internet, while protecting all parties involved, with zero tolerance for illegality. I look forward to working with all interested parties, service providers, educators, entertainers, authors and others as this issue develops. I welcome the involvement of Senators who may have an interest in this legislation and the opportunity to work together to develop sound policy. Mr. President, the administration took a lead role in the copyright debate that took place in an international forum. We must continue this leadership in the Senate, in order to secure the U.S. role not only as a leader in the manufacture of technology and development of content, but also as a leader in fashioning a fair and just approach to the use of digital technology and information. Mr. president, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I speak today on an issue of great importance to copyright law and to the continued growth of electronic commerce on the Internet. In December 1996, two treaties were adopted by the diplomatic conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO] to update international copyright law. These treaties would extend international copyright law into the digital environment, including the Internet. However, these treaties do not provide a comprehensive response to the many copyright issues raised by the flourishing of the Internet and the promise of digital technology. We must endeavor to keep the scales of copyright law balanced, providing important protections to creators of content, while ensuring their widespread distribution. To begin the discussion I am introducing today the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997. Any discussion of this issue, even in the most simple terms, raises many important issues. We must foster the growth of the Internet, which provides such great opportunity to our country because it is the most participatory form of mass communication ever developed. It draws people together from all corners of the globe to share and communicate on an unprecedented level, and brings all levels of government closer to the public. The Internet also holds great promise for education. Students--rural, suburban, and urban--are increasingly able to access a wealth of information right at their computer that was previously beyond their reach. In addition, the Internet offers significant commercial possibilities. Small businesses can reach out across the globe and conquer the distances between them and potential customers. Individuals can view merchandise and make purchases without leaving home. Hopefully, soon a system will develop to allow individuals to contract electronically with traditional force of law for contracts on paper. However, this potential will never be realized without a system that fairly protects the interests of those who own copyrighted material; those who deliver that material via the Internet; and individual users. The implications here are far-reaching, with impacts that touch individual users, companies, libraries, universities, teachers and students. The legislation I am introducing today would accomplish several goals. First, the legislation would clarify the extent of liability for entities who transfer information via the Internet without control of the content. Second, the bill would provide for a rapid response to copyright infringement with the cooperation of the copyright owner and the on-line service to take down the infringing material, helping to curtail piracy. Third, the Act will provide for the use of digital technology in education, research, and library archives, including updating the fair use doctrine for electronic media. Fourth, the legislation provides a standard for liability based on individual conduct, not a standard that constrains the development of new technology. We must confirm that the entities who facilitate the operation of the global information infrastructure not be unfairly liable for literally billions of transmissions that individual users send via the Internet or post on the World Wide Web every week. We cannot make the Internet too costly to operate. Liability for infringement of copyright should reflect the degree of control that any party had in the determination of the content of the offending message. Those providing the infrastructure that makes the Internet possible should not be held liable for the content of messages to which they have no access. Often, the copyright holders will be best situated to make a determination of whether their copyrighted material is being infringed. In addition, two very real considerations in the final outcome are the capabilities and limits of current technology. It is not possible to monitor every communication on the Internet, not even to look at every homepage on the World Wide Web, even if it were desirable. In January 1997, one estimate put the number of Internet hosts at more than 16 million. Each could host multiple homepages, and those individual sites could be composed of multiple individual pages. One individual host, GeoCities, boasts of more than half a million homesteaders, with 5,000 new residents arriving daily. As of May 1997 there were more than 40 million people on the Web, a breathtaking increase from the 1 million in December 1994. To state the facts of the exploding traffic growth in a different way, one major infrastructure provider, of which there are many, reports traffic of 250 terabytes a month--a terabyte is a thousand billion bytes--which translates into almost six billion bytes a minute--for one carrier. More importantly, any wholesale reading of messages would constitute the largest full scale attack on our individual privacy ever undertaken. We are confident that those delivering the mail do not read our sealed letters and we should have that same confidence in our e-mail and other electronic communications. It would be impossible for any carrier to review all of the material; and we cannot create a legal obligation that is technologically impossible to satisfy. Clearly, the potential for copyright infringement is real--as real as the impossibility of requiring a service provider to monitor every communication, including e-mail, homepages, and chat rooms. Another important issue is the right of reproduction as specifically related to ephemeral copying. As a message is sent through cyberspace copies of the message are reproduced, in a sense. This is a reality of computer technology. For the most part an entire copy never exists anywhere, except at the points of distribution and receipt. The Internet was designed to send packets, pieces of a message expressed in digital form, a full message is not sent from one point to another. In the process of delivering the message multiple copies of each packet are sent so if a path is blocked path or data lost, the end message can be totally reassembled. Additionally, a full copy may be assembled on the recipient's server, where the message would reside until the recipient pulls down the file, or a copy may be made on a user's hard drive during the simple act of reading a document on-line. Obviously, to make this sort of copy illegal would be a move that flies in the face of the operations of the Internet and would destroy the World Wide Web. We need to make clear the status of these temporary and necessary copies within communications networks. The passage of appropriate copyright legislation goes beyond the implications of liability and technical operations. The outcome of this debate will affect educators and students across the country. One important aspect for education is to guarantee that computers can be used in distance learning, in a way that television and video recorders have been used for years. The copyright laws have long recognized the need to ensure that the copyright laws do not stand in the way of the opportunities that the technology promises to provide students in rural areas. Unfortunately, the current law reflects the technology that was current when it was passed, largely video. We need to update these laws to reflect the enormous potential of the digital era. Part of the work in this area may include defining the classroom to reflect that in many instances the classroom is no longer a physical space. In addition, the fair use doctrine in the Copyright Act should be amended to make clear that fair use applies regardless of the manner in which the material is distributed. A sound fair use doctrine is critical to continued interoperability of various systems, which in effect allows the Internet to exist and grow. Fair use encourages others to build freely on the ideas and information in a work while guaranteeing the author's right to their original expression. Currently, fair use may be made of a work for teaching, commentary, research, scholarship, criticism, and even news reporting. We should not tolerate discriminatory treatment based on a means of distribution or an alternative technology. Fair use in one medium should be fair use in another. Finally, we must facilitate the preservation of copyrighted materials by libraries, archives, and universities. These institutions should be able to preserve their works, many of which represent the cultural heritage of the United States, in the best means possible, including digitally. To require that these institutions purchase new copies of existing works, but in digital format, could cost untold billions of dollars. Many works could never be made available digitally as they are no longer available in a format available for purchase. Mr. President, we have made an effort to provide access to technology to all students in the last couple of years. In 1996, Congress appropriated $200 million to provide teachers with the training and support needed for access to technology, and to ensure that effective software and on-line resources would be available for use with the curriculum. The fiscal year 1998 budget request from the administration for this program is $425 million, with the House Appropriations Committee approving $460 million. Approving nearly $700 million over 2 years to guarantee that education can be delivered in a digital format, while impeding or denying delivery of digital material by neglecting our copyright law makes no sense. A decision has been made that students must prepare to operate in an on-line world. We must unlock the teaching potential of the Internet and we must now guarantee that the appropriate material is made available, so that our students can receive a full education while taking advantage of the tremendous strides made in technology. The Missouri State Librarian recently wrote to me that Missouri's strong distance education programs could flourish or wither, depending on the outcome of this debate. I suspect this is the case in all States with strong distance learning programs to serve rural areas. These programs allow residents in even the most remote areas to have the same access to education as those who live near schools, colleges, or universities. These programs cannot operate as effectively without the assurance that educators can use materials over computer networks. Equally important, Mr. President, we must begin a process internationally that is structured to balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs and technological limitations of those who enable the distribution of the electronic information, and with the rights and needs of individual end users. The current treaties and statements are not sufficient, and include some language that could create legal uncertainty. The loose language could lead to law that ignores technical realities, blindly shifts liability and ignores serious issues. The language must be clarified through the enactment of legislation in conjunction with the Senate's ratification of the treaties. Moreover, some of the proposed treaty implementation language attempts to attack copyright violations from the position of the technology that may be used, rather than placing the blame on those who are infringing the copyright. We cannot legislate technology. Just as we have seen the legislated 56-bit encryption become obsolete so too will any technology frozen in place by legislation. We must end policies of the Government that hinder technology, but, more importantly we must not initiate new policies that express an inherent fear of new technology. We must recognize other realities. Scores of software programs are illegally copied on-line, and intellectual piracy is an issue. However, some of this problem relates to the failure of the law, particularly copyright law, to keep up with the swift advance of technology. In a digital environment, hundreds of copies can be made and distributed in the blink of an eye. These copies are reproductions; they are perfect recreations of the original. The speed with which copies can be made makes the traditional ways of enforcing the copyright laws--a court order--obsolete. Copyright laws must evolve to embrace the new medium of digital storage and transmission. Those who provide the content for the Internet need some assurance that their valuable work will not become worthless because piracy. The approach in the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997 requires that service providers cooperate with content providers by taking action after they are notified that illegal material is posted, or being transmitted on their systems. The benefits to copyright holders are notable. A copyright owner will be able to stop the illegal distribution of the material quickly without having to use the courts as a first measure. This approach solves the largest problem for on- line piracy, by providing a quick response to illegal activity which will preserve the value of the material. Mr. President, one of the many important values held in this country is the freedom of expression. The United States must continue to be a leader in the preservation of freedom of expression around the world. Many countries are looking to the United States to be a leader on these important issues. We have the opportunity to send a strong message internationally that copyright law must be revised to fit the realities of a digital environment, and that by doing so we can encourage the growth and evolution of the Internet, while protecting all parties involved, with zero tolerance for illegality. I look forward to working with all interested parties, service providers, educators, entertainers, authors and others as this issue develops. I welcome the involvement of Senators who may have an interest in this legislation and the opportunity to work together to develop sound policy. Mr. President, the administration took a lead role in the copyright debate that took place in an international forum. We must continue this leadership in the Senate, in order to secure the U.S. role not only as a leader in the manufacture of technology and development of content, but also as a leader in fashioning a fair and just approach to the use of digital technology and information. Mr. president, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his accommodation in this respect. He is entirely correct; this extends the same protections and the same regime of Federal funding to the HMO setting that we have had in the fee-for-service setting, and it is appropriate that we extend the commitment of the Congress in this respect.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is an honor to serve the people of Missouri and this great country. One of the privileges I have as a Missouri Senator is to recognize those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in service to the State of Missouri. For 25 years, Cheryl Huff, of Mexico, MO, has served faithfully the people of Missouri through the Division of Youth Services. Within the Missouri Department of Social Services, the Division of Youth Services is the State agency responsible for the care and treatment of youth, committed to its custody by one of Missouri's 45 juvenile courts. This State agency operates treatment programs ranging from nonresidential day treatment centers to secure residential institutions. The 1889 establishment of the Training School for Boys in Boonville and the Training School for Girls in Chillicothe marked the foundation of the division of youth services. It was at the Training School for Boys in Boonville, a quarter of a century ago, that Cheryl began her service. She is widely respected by peers for her sound judgement and personal integrity. During her tenure, Cheryl has distinguished herself among her colleagues as an efficient and effective caretaker of Missouri's most precious resource--its children. The recognition of Cheryl for her commitment to Missouri's children simply mirrors her dedication to her own family. While the accomplishments of a successful career are important to her, those who know Cheryl would be the first to point out that her career is secondary to her love of family. The lasting legacy of Cheryl's life is apparent in the time, energy, and resources she has invested in her children. She exemplifies the highest commitment to relentless dedication and sacrifice. Cheryl, the grateful State of Missouri offers you these simple words of appreciation: Thank you.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk concerning recent fighting in the Republic of Congo. Senator Feingold is joining me as an original cosponsor of this resolution, and I greatly appreciate his support in this effort and his help as the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee. The Republic of Congo--not to be confused with the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly known as Zaire--has been embroiled in domestic unrest since early June when hostilities erupted between the forces of the former military dictator Denis Sassou-Nguesso and troops loyal to the current Congolese leader, President Pascal Lissouba. President Lissouba defeated Sassou in national elections in 1992. Recent hostilities between the two leaders pose a threat to the nascent democracy that the Republic of Congo has tried to cultivate over the last 5 years. The Republic of Congo has made significant steps to embrace democracy since the late 1980's. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the people of the Republic of Congo pressed for democratic change in their own country. Their struggle against political repression was rewarded with the convening of a national conference in 1991 and the adoption of a multiparty constitution in 1992. The first free national elections were held in 1992. Since that time the Congolese people have endured violent threats to their emerging democracy. Indeed, factional infighting between rival political groups has taken the lives of several thousand people since 1993. The most recent outbreak of fighting poses yet another challenge to the people of the Republic of Congo and the liberty they desire for their country. Thankfully, a ceasefire was signed by the warring parties over the weekend of July 12-13, and representatives of President Lissouba and Sassou-Nguesso have been in Libreville, Gabon attempting to negotiate a peace agreement. It is my sincere hope that negotiations are constructive and that the Republic of Congo is able to move forward and hold elections previously scheduled for July 27, but now delayed indefinitely. We should make it clear to all parties involved in the conflict in the Republic of Congo that the United States condemns violent attempts to overthrow the democratically-elected government of the Republic of Congo. There is too much at stake in Central Africa right now for the United States to remain silent about instability which threatens the peaceful transfer of power in a country struggling to embrace democracy. United States foreign policy in Central Africa has failed miserably in restraining the forces of violence which have plagued Rwanda and Burundi, the former Zaire, and now the Republic of Congo. The Clinton administration must address more forcefully the chain of events in Central Africa before the region spirals out of control. A good place to start would be to speak out forcefully in support of democracy in the Republic of Congo and against the violence which threatens the country's stability. Mr. President, it is time to take a public stand in support of the fragile democracy in the Republic of Congo, which is why I am submitting this resolution today. I hope at the appropriate time my colleagues will vote to condemn the violence now threatening the prospects for constitutional government and the rule of law in the Republic of Congo.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating Sgt. Gary Hurt as he retires on August 31, 1997, from 28 years of service to the Missouri State Highway Patrol. I add my personal appreciation and best wishes to those of Gary's many friends and colleagues. There are few careers more noble than those spent in public service. Gary's 18 years in the Governor's Security Division of the Missouri State Highway Patrol have meant a great deal to the people he has served. I add a special word of thanks to Gary for his dedicated service to me during my two terms as Governor of Missouri. During my tenure as Governor, Gary and I traveled from one end of the State to the other, as well as around the country. Gary always represented the State of Missouri and the Missouri Highway Patrol with dignity, integrity, and professionalism. His commitment to detail put me at ease regardless of travel and event circumstances. I am grateful to Gary and I would like to publicly thank him for the outstanding service he graciously provided my family and me while I served as Governor of Missouri. I wish Gary and his wife, Carol, much happiness as they begin a new chapter in their lives. May God richly bless them both.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Catherine and Martin Suetterlin of St. Louis County, MO, who on September 27, 1997, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Suetterlins' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Brooks and Ray Behrens of Eldon, MO, who on August 3, 1997, will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Behrens' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 22, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to review the Department of Interior's handling of the Ward Valley land conveyance, the findings of a new General Accounting Office report on the issue, and to receive testimony on S. 964, The Ward Valley Land Transfer Act.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on women's health during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, at 10 a.m.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, at 2 p.m., in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building, to hold a hearing on judicial nominations.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee special investigation to meet on Tuesday, July 22, at 10 a.m., for a business meeting on campaign financing issues.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, at 10:45 a.m. and 2 p.m. to hold hearings.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, to conduct a hearing on the Federal Mass Transit Program and the reauthorization of ISTEA.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in SR-328A to receive testimony regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's clean air regulations and agriculture.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, last week, my friend Tim Hutchinson, the Senator from Arkansas, took the floor to lend his voice to a growing chorus of disapproval over the state of United States-China relations. I commend him for his actions. While his efforts to pass a sense of the Senate resolution against most favored nation status for China were unsuccessful, his actions were the very essence of what it means to be a leader. He set out to achieve noble aspirations, and then dedicated his energies to achieve those objectives. Leadership is ascertaining noble objectives and working hard, intently and sacrificially. Such efforts push us toward our highest and best. The highest and best to which Senator Hutchinson called us is an end to which we must all aspire. Teddy Roosevelt said it this way: Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat. Twenty-two Members of the Senate had the courage to say that the tainted flow of Western currency into China must end, not because the exchange of goods between sovereign nations is injurious, but because we have in China today a ruthless regime that does not deserve unfettered access to United States markets, a regime whose brutal repression at home betrays its intentions abroad. America is a place that has cared always for what Thomas Paine called the ``rights of man.'' The United States has always been a country that gave no quarter to tyranny or tyrants. Teddy Roosevelt put it a bit differently, cautioning that America must not become ``an assemblage of well-to-do hucksters who care nothing for what happens beyond.'' But, Mr. President, does not the vote on the Hutchinson amendment suggest that Teddy Roosevelt's worst fears are being realized? For the message being sent from China today is as unmistakable as it is disturbing. Beijing believes that life is cheap and cheaper still when that life opposes the authoritarian rule of the Communist Party. The State Department, in its most recent human rights report, states that ``all public dissent against the party and government was effectively silenced'' in China. ``No dissidents were known to be active at year's end.'' Beijing has used imprisonment, exile, and summary execution to quiet the voices of those who cry for freedom. China's 1982 Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, the press, and religious belief. And yet, the hollowness of that document becomes more apparent with every passing day. Chinese authorities routinely resort to torture, the denial of due process, forced confessions, prison labor, and extrajudicial killings to crush Chinese citizens who stand up for liberty and defy Beijing. As Nina Shea notes in ``The Lion's Den,'' China has more Christians in prison because of religious activities than any other nation. This morning's New York Times detailed a State Department report due to be issued today--and I have a copy of it here--which is sharply critical of Beijing's efforts to suppress religious worship. The report, which is entitled, ``U.S. Policy in Support of Religious Freedom,'' says, ``The Government of China has sought to restrict all actual religious practice to government-subsidized religious organizations and registered places of worship.'' The report goes on to detail the story of four underground Roman Catholic bishops who have been imprisoned or detained. They are not alone. Many other Catholic priests, the Times notes, ``have been searched by government agents and their religious articles have been seized.'' Consider the case of Bishop Su. Hung from the ceiling by his wrists, Su was battered time and again about the head until all but unconscious. He was then placed in a cell filled with water where he was left for days unable to sit or to sleep. His high crime? His treason? A fidelity to God and a desire to exercise that devotion. It is true that the official Catholic Church in China is registered with the Government and claims as many as 4 million members. However, the official church does not recognize the authority of the Pope, so all Vatican-affiliated Catholics are viewed by Beijing as unregistered. Moreover, as the State Department report suggests, ``Communist Party officials state that party membership and religious belief are incompatible,'' placing a serious limitation on believers. And who, Mr. President, will denounce the mounting persecutions of Christians in China? The administration has not made a sound. Well, I would respectfully remind them that to sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards out of all men. America must not trade civil liberty for the false idol of foreign commerce. We must be willing not just to sound historic, but we must pursue policies which are historically sound. We must be willing to condemn religious persecution both in China and around the world. The disturbing trends revealed in the State Department report due today are not without precedent. In June 1996, the Far Eastern Economic Review reported that ``Chinese police had destroyed at least 15,000 unregistered temples, churches and tombs'' in the Zheijang province alone in just 5 months. Those church leaders who dared to resist were tortured, beaten, and killed. Is it any wonder then that the future of Hong Kong has been the subject of great concern. At the beginning of this month, all eyes were turned toward the British colony as it reverted to Chinese control. I sincerely hope that our eyes will remain focused there, for constant vigilance is the key to exposing and resisting Chinese encroachment on freedom in the former colony. Although China wants Hong Kong to remain a vibrant financial center and serve as an example for unification with Taiwan, Beijing has not hesitated to undermine Hong Kong's political autonomy in spite of its pledge in the 1984 joint declaration to honor one country, two systems. China has declared the elected Hong Kong Legislature invalid and has appointed a hand-picked provisional legislative body. China's appointed chief executive of Hong Kong, Tung Chee-hwa, promises that new elections will be held in 1998 but has drawn the electoral districts to limit the influence of Martin Lee's Democratic Party. Mr. Tung has recently unveiled new measures to restrict civil liberties in Hong Kong. Public protests will have to receive prior approval and could be banned to protect so-called ``national security.'' Political organizations will be required to register with the government and prohibited from seeking or receiving funds from overseas sources. Under Tung's definition, international organizations that expose China's human rights abuses will also be banned from receiving foreign funds. Unfortunately, the administration's Hong Kong policy has been about self-preservation rather than promoting self-government. Political activist Martin Lee got a hero's welcome on Capitol Hill, but the administration met only reluctantly with Lee. Vice President Gore conveniently forgot Hong Kong on his recent trip to China, and much to the dismay of Martin Lee and other Hong Kong Democrats, Consul General Richard Boucher attended the inaugural ceremony of China's hand-picked legislature--the legislature which replaced the freely elected body that Martin Lee had worked so hard to preserve. Mr. President, the preservation of liberty for the 6.3 million people in Hong Kong is about more than the immediate fate of its residents. The battle for civil liberty in Hong Kong could very well be the battle for civil liberty in China. As George Will has written, China has just swallowed ``a radioactive isotope'' of Western culture in taking over Hong Kong. Hong Kong serves as a shining example of democracy and free market economics, and the effective removal of that model would set back the march of freedom in China. In a world that is increasingly open and free, there still exist totalitarian governments which cling to political repression and deny their people the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. Beijing claims that the Chinese people are more concerned about social cohesion and domestic order than the growth of civil liberty--that Western democracy is a Western phenomenon and not necessarily applicable to China, that it is somehow foreign to Far Eastern culture. But what does Beijing think about the growth of democracy in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea? How do China's leaders explain away the deaths of perhaps thousands of students who were willing to risk everything for liberty in Tiananmen Square? How does Beijing respond to heroes like Wei Jingsheng and Harry Wu who continue to fight against oppression in spite of intimidation, imprisonment, and torture? Troublingly, Beijing cannot answer these questions. Tragically, these are questions that the West is often afraid to ask. Mr. President, I look forward to a U.S. foreign policy that calls the community of nations to their highest and best. America for her part must be willing to stand for freedom as she has since her first days. When the Chinese people eventually rid themselves of Beijing's tyrannical leadership and embrace democracy, just as South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan have done before them, let it be said that America stood with them, stood with them and for them in their cause for freedom. Despite the troubling revelations of the State Department report and the defeat of the Hutchinson amendment last week, I believe that we must continue to press on. Teddy Roosevelt was right; it is hard to fail but it is worse never to have tried to succeed. The right of man to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield is at the core of what individual liberty and dignity means, and it is at the core of the values we regard highly in America. It is a message of hope and calls this country to its highest and best. It is a message that America must proclaim if the coming century is to be defined by the growth of liberty and not surrendered to those who would stifle freedom. China has been abusive to its own citizens and signals an ominous cloud over the Far East, a cloud whose poison could spread well beyond its own borders and taint the opportunity for freedom around the world. China's total disregard for religious liberty, China's contempt for the liberty of individuals in the political system, and China's willingness to require the registration of religious groups whose members would worship God freely without subservience to the government, signals to us the need for America to stand up clearly--not as an enemy to the Chinese but as a friend of those people who seek liberty from tyrants. I believe the Chinese people seek liberty and will respond constructively to freedom just as people around the world have wherever the grace of freedom has been made available to them. The United States can no longer suggest that we might cease to be the city on a hill whose light is a beacon for freedom. We have a responsibility to maintain the commitment to freedom that those who began this Nation had, and I submit that it is time for us to signal our commitment to freedom clearly and unmistakably to those who would enter the community of nations. China seeks and wants to enter that community, and the United States must speak clearly to China about the rights of man we have always defended. I think it is time for the United States to have its voice heard and to be a contributor to the cause of liberty and freedom around the globe. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business until the completion of my remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank you very much, and I thank the Senator from Arkansas, not only for his courtesy in this matter, but for his leadership in this matter. It is apparent, the House of Representatives having voted in favor of most-favored-nation status for China, that anything we do by expressing ourselves in the Senate won't have a real impact in terms of denying that standing to China. But it is essential that we register the displeasure and dissatisfaction of this body with the conduct of China in three basic categories that I believe are an appropriate standard by which we would measure our relationship with a variety of nations. The first of those categories is gross trade inequities that China and the United States have. Some have said that most-favored-nation status is just general trading status. As it applies to China, it is most-favored status. We have a wide variety of other countries whose trading relationships with the United States are nearly on a parallel basis of balance. Not so with China. Second is that the military buildup in China threatens peace and stability, not only in the Pacific rim but around the world. And the third is that human rights abuses in China should be something we mention very clearly and we should express with deep conviction.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating Clarence Vernon Woodside of Excelsior Springs, MO, who will celebrate his 100th birthday on August 11, 1997. Clarence is a truly remarkable individual. He has witnessed many of the events that have shaped our Nation into the greatest the world has ever known. The longevity of Clarence's life has meant much more, however, to the many relatives and friends whose lives he has touched over the last 100 years. Clarence's celebration of 100 years of life is a testament to me and all Missourians. His achievements are significant and deserve to be recognized. I would like to join his many friends and relatives in wishing Clarence health and happiness in the future.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating Vera Fairbanks of Blue Springs, MO, who will celebrate her 100th birthday on August 2, 1997. Vera is a truly remarkable individual. She has witnessed many of the events that have shaped our Nation into the greatest the world has ever known. The longevity of Vera's life has meant much more, however, to the many relatives and friends whose lives she has touched over the last 100 years. Vera's celebration of 100 years of life is a testament to me and all Missourians. Her achievements are significant and deserve to be recognized. I would like to join her friends and relatives in wishing Vera health and happiness in the future.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Mr. and Mrs. Vernon Riggs of Saint Ann, MO, who on July 13, 1997, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Riggs' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part" seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Janice and Bill Lancaster of Grandview, MO, who on July 23, 1997, will celebrate their 37th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Lancasters' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed until I complete my remarks, which will be 20 or 25 minutes.