Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany S. 430.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene on Monday at 12 noon and will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Senator Durbin will be in control of the first hour and Senator Thomas in control of the second hour. Following morning business, the Senate will resume debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2557, the National Energy Security Act. This is all on Monday. As a reminder, cloture was filed on the pending amendment to the H-1B visa bill, and that vote will occur on Tuesday, 1 hour after the Senate convenes. At 3:50 p.m. on Monday, the Senate will begin closing remarks on the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, with a vote scheduled to occur at 4:50 p.m. Let me say, the chairman of the committee, Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, has done an excellent job on this piece of legislation. He worked through a number of concerns that Senators had, but he would not have been able to get that agreement without the support and cooperation of Senator Daschle and Senator Reid. This is important legislation. Water resources are important for our country. I am glad we are going to be able to complete this bill in the way it is being done and we will have it completed by 5 o'clock next Tuesday.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask the Senate stand in recess, under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Baucus and Senator Byrd.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Record remain open until 1 p.m. today for Senators to submit statements.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of Morning Business until 11:30 a.m. Following Morning Business, the Senate will resume the final debate on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4516, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill. A vote on final passage of the Conference Report is expected to occur at approximately 3:30 p.m. After the vote, it is hoped that the Senate can begin consideration of the Water Resources Development Act under a time agreement. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout this afternoon's session. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to use some of my leader time to conclude discussion on the China PNTR.

Mr. LOTT. First, Mr. President, this is the last day of a very critical and helpful staff member working here with the Senate in the Finance Committee. That person is Debbie Lamb on Senator Moynihan's staff. She has been his chief trade counsel and has been very helpful, obviously, to Senator Moynihan and, before that, to Senator Bentsen. I remember specifically one night we were negotiating the final contours of a bill between the House and the Senate. I wound up relying on her counsel as we made the final decisions. People may find it somewhat a surprise that the majority leader, a Republican, would be relying on the counsel on the other side of the aisle, but it does work that way and it attests to her credibility and expertise. She has done a wonderful job. We wish her the very best. In that connection, too, I want to recognize the outstanding work that has been done by Senator Moynihan and by Chairman Roth. Here he is, sitting right behind me. They have been patient; they have been willing to spend hours here in the Senate. They waited weeks to get their opportunity to have it considered in the Senate. There was no effort made to cut off a full debate. I think every Senator believes he or she had the opportunity they needed to make their case, state their positions, and raise their concerns or why they supported it. Also, we had numerous amendments, and all of them failed. Some of them were very attractive. In fact, I felt very strongly about a couple of them, obviously. But they waded through all of this and we are going to have a final vote in a moment. I think it is going to be an overwhelming vote. I think it is the right thing to do and I commend Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan for their leadership. When history is written about this session, one of the things I believe it will say is that this is a session of Congress that did spend time and wound up passing some important trade bills with relation to not only China but the Caribbean and also Africa. A lot of credit goes to the leaders of this committee. Regardless of one's views on the merits, there is no question about the significance of the measure we consider today. Normalizing trade relations with China will not only have profound effects upon our economic well-being, but it will undoubtedly have significant implications for our relations with China and our national security. China accounts for a quarter of the world's population. It has one of the largest economies in the world--an economy that has been growing at a remarkable rate of nearly 10 percent per year. China unquestionably is and will be a major factor in the world, especially economically. There is also no question that China's entry into the World Trade Organization holds great opportunities for the United States. Chief among them are the economic benefits that would flow from the dismantling of Chinese trade barriers--barriers that deny benefits to our workers and businesses. But many people in this country have legitimate questions. They question whether China will live up to its commitments, whether it will trade fairly in our market, and whether we are ignoring China's human rights abuses and its destabilizing behavior in the world. These are not questions to be taken lightly. And that is why I have insisted that the Senate not rush to action on this bill, and that those on both sides have a full opportunity to air their views and their amendments. The Senate has had ample time to consider the agreements reached with China, has held numerous hearings on its potential accession to the WTO, and has engaged in a full and vigorous debate on this issue. That is certainly fitting on an issue of this magnitude. I know that many of my colleagues, like myself, have struggled with this issue in light of our larger concerns about China and its behavior in the world. We all know that China is a one-party State that denies the most basic rights to its people. We must acknowledge that it deprives its people of religious freedom, that it has flagrantly engaged in weapons proliferation, and that it has repeatedly used unfair trade practices in our market. Whle some may argue that we should, I do not believe that we can totally separate these broader issues from the question of our trade relationship with China. But I also believe that we cannot allow our desire for reform in China to blind us not only to the benefits we receive from trade with China, but from the positive effects trade may have within that country. On balance, I am convinced that expanding our trading relation with China is not only in our economic self interest, but in our broader national interest as well. There are many misconceptions about the action Congress is taking with this legislation. Chief among them is the view that we are voting on whether to allow China into the World Trade Organization. The fact is that China will almost certainly enter the WTO, regardless of whether the United States approves this legislation. What this legislation will decide is whether the commitments of WTO membership are applied bilaterally between the United States and China. Applying WTO commitments to trade between the United States and China is in our economic interest--and for a simple reason. We already grant China the favorable access to our market required by the WTO. China, however, does not grant similar access to our products. As such, this agreement will expand our access to China's market; it will not expand China's access to ours. Many of my colleagues have gone through in detail the market-opening concessions China will be forced to make upon entry into the WTO. Let me just highlight some of the major terms that will have a direct impact on our workers and companies: China will be required to cut tariffs from a current average of almost 25 percent to an average of around 9 percent by 2005--with particularly sharp reductions for farm products and information technology products; China will be required to provide our companies with full trading and distribution rights--eliminating the need to go through trading companies blessed by the Chinese government; China will be required to greatly expand access to its market for agricultural goods, ranging from cotton, wheat, soybeans, rice and farm products across the spectrum. China will for the first time be required to provide real access to financial services providers--allowing U.S. banks, insurers and other providers significant new access. Why would we walk away from these new and dramatic benefits-- particularly when our market is already open to Chinese imports? Both the farming and manufacturing community in my home state--as in states across the country--have voiced strong support for increased trade with China. They know that we cannot afford to neglect economic ties with a nation of more than 1 billion people, and a market that already is the sixth largest for U.S. agricultural exports. They know that with expanded trade China is projected to account for more than one third of the growth in U.S. agricultural exports. Whether it is cotton farmers in the delta or poultry producers in central Mississippi, our farmers need China's market. We also stand to make huge gains in the high tech sector, where the U.S. leads, and where my state is growing in leaps and bounds. Only 2.5 percent of China's population has a computer and only 1 percent has access to the Internet--but these numbers are growing rapidly. If we do not trade with China, you can bet that our competitors in Japan and Europe will. And it will be their workers and industries--not ours--that reap the benefits of increased access to China's market. If the economic benefits are clear, what is it that we give up by approving permanent trade relations with China? Most concretely, we end the automatic annual review of China's trade status under the Jackson- Vanik amendment. I do not take this lightly. We must acknowledge that gaining permanent trading status in our market has been a major objective of China's. And we should not dismiss out of hand the salutary effects that have resulted from a yearly review of China's actions and status. But we must also question how much leverage this review continues to provide--particularly given that China's most favored nation status has never been withdrawn in the 20 years since relations with the PRC were normalized in 1979. And we must consider as well what benefits and favorable effects are likely to accompany a closer trading relation between our countries. Trade will not solve all of our problems with China, and it will not change China's behavior overnight. But economic forces are powerful-- often beyond anything we can imagine. China's commitments under the WTO agreements will require it to loosen its grip--perhaps not dramatically at first, but in real and observable ways--over the economic life of its people. As wealth grows among China's middle class, as they see the benefits of open markets and freedom, as they share in the unbelievable exchange of ideas that the new economy and the Internet bring, change will come to China. And we must be there, to engage, to influence, and to foster ideas that will hopefully lead to a new flowering of democracy and freedom--and over the long run to a more peaceful and stable world. I want to stress one thing. The passage of this bill must not--and I can tell you that as long as I have anything to say about it, it will not--mark a lessening of our commitment to scrutinize China's behavior, to combat proliferation, and to advance the cause of human and religious rights. Our friends and allies around the world should not misinterpret what happened with our vote on the Thompson amendment--a vote that was caught up in the back and forth of how best to consider the measure. This country is united in its determination to combat weapons proliferation in China and around the world. Our commitment has not wavered, and we have not seen the last of this issue on the Senate floor. We must recognize the legitimate fears and concerns of many citizens regarding trade with China. They know China has abused our market in the past and has failed to live up to its end of the bargain in recent trade agreements. Ensuring Chinese compliance with its commitments will not be easy. But it is essential that we are unwavering in our vigilance to see that our workers and our companies get the benefits they are promised. This agreement maintains our ability to use our trade laws fully to combat Chinese unfair trade practices, and to take trade measures necessary to protect our national security. We must respond swiftly and forcefully where the need arises. This will be one of the most closely scrutinized trade agreements in history, as it should be. The American people know that we can compete and win with fair and open markets, but they will not long tolerate the systematic flouting of our agreements and the abuse of our market. This will be a test--not only of our own resolve to make trade agreements work for our citizens, but of the ability of the WTO and the international system to deliver on the promises it has made. This has been a remarkable year for trade legislation. I want to congratulate Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan once again for their extraordinary efforts to get our trade agenda back on track-- passing this year both the Africa-CBI trade enhancement act and now this critical piece of legislation. It is a record of accomplishment for which we can all be proud. But it is not a time to rest or sit back. We saw in Seattle the consequences of indecision, mixed messages and lack of resolve in the cause of freer and fairer trade. Making the case for freer trade and open markets will never be easy. The concrete dislocations and challenges that come with increased global trade are often easier to see and to seize upon than the more diffuse gains from new markets and new economic growth. It is up to us as policy makers and public officials to ensure that our workers and our businesses see the gains from trade, that they receive the benefits of the agreements we make, and that our security and our economic well- being are enhanced as we seek further engagement in the global economy. I know there are legitimate concerns about this legislation and that there are those having to struggle with whether or not we can trust China's compliance. They are legitimate concerns about human rights violations, religious persecution, and nuclear weapons activities. But I also believe it would be a tremendous mistake to ignore the advantages of this trade legislation. There are a billion people in China. These are markets that are not now open to us. Just last night, I looked over what would come out of this legislation. The fact is, they will have to open markets. China will be required to cut tariffs from the current average of almost 25 percent to an average of 9 percent by 2005, with a particularly sharp reduction for farm products and information technology. China will be required to provide our companies with full trading and distribution rights; it will be required to greatly expand access to its markets for agricultural goods, ranging from cotton, wheat, soybeans, rice, and farm products across the spectrum. For the first time, China will be required to provide real access to financial services providers. This is legislation that is good for America, that is good for the working people in our country. It will take a lot of vigilance. I think we need to make sure of its compliance. But it is the right thing to do. I will vote for this legislation and I hope it will be accepted overwhelmingly. Have the yeas and nays been ordered, Mr. President?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I rise today to inform the Senate of a sad loss for our Senate family. Yesterday, Murray Zweben, former Parliamentarian Emeritus, passed away at Suburban Hospital from a bout with pneumonia. Murray served the Senate for 24 years over the span of four decades. He began this long and distinguished Senate career during the late 1950's serving as Secretary to the Parliamentarian while attending law school. After clerking for a Federal judge, he returned to the Senate in 1963 to fill the vacated position of Second Assistant Parliamentarian. Murray was promoted to the position of Assistant Parliamentarian in 1964, where he served under the legendary Dr. Floyd Ridick for 10 years. In 1975, Murray ascended to the rank of Senate Parliamentarian, a position that he held until 1981. Two years later, he was honored with the prestigious title Parliamentarian Emeritus. Although I never had the honor of working with Murray, I am well aware of his enormous contributions to this body. A native of New Jersey, Murray graduated from Clarkson College of Technology, and later received his masters degree in education from the State University of New York in Albany. After serving his country for 4 years in the Navy, Murray moved to the Washington, DC, area in 1956. In 1959, he graduated from George Washington University law school, where he served on the law review. After his tenure in the Senate, Murray opened a successful private law practice here in DC. Murray is survived by his wife Anne; his five children Suzanne, Lisa, Marc, John, and Harry; and five grandchildren. I along with the rest of my colleagues send our deepest condolences to the Zweben family over their loss.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there have been numerous efforts over the past several months to find a way to come to agreement on how to proceed to the so-called H-1B bill, which is a bill to provide for additional high-tech workers to come into this country. Since we have already reached the limit, I believe, for this year, there is a need for additional workers in this area. We have negotiated back and forth. At one point we were talking about 10 amendments on each side. Then we got down to seven, six, and yet Senator Daschle and I were working to see if we could clear five amendments. Then you get into all kinds of discussions. Are these just relevant amendments or can it be five agreed-to amendments? How do we deal with Senators who would want to add clearly unrelated amendments that could take down the whole issue? Without questioning the motives of anybody, I think Senator Daschle and I have been serious in trying to work something out. We have tried repeatedly, but there have been objections for one reason or another on both sides. I do not think we can pursue that any further, although one of the major problems, I had a Senator tell me yesterday maybe he would feel he would not object by Tuesday. But if we wait until Tuesday, then we have lost more days. So if we should be able to come to agreement that would be good. We could vitiate cloture and go to it. If we cannot, we need to go ahead and get to this issue. Hopefully we can get cloture, and when we do, relevant amendments would still be in order, and we still would have to go through a conference. Obviously, there would be input from both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Capitol, and from the administration on the final contours on this bill. But we are down to the point now where there are a number of important bills remaining on the calendar, and if we don't find a way to address them one of two things will happen: They either won't be considered in a conference at the end of the session, or they will be considered in such a way that they will be added to some other bill, unrelated, some appropriations conference report, or something else. At times that is the best way to proceed, and we should keep that option open. But I would prefer to have the Senate act its will on a bill of this type and relevant amendments be offered and debated and voted on. So that is what I want to try to set up here. I have notified the Democratic leader--he has a representative here-- that this is what we are going to do now, that we would move to a cloture motion and then we will get to vote on it next week. cloture motion

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to proceed to S. 2045, the H-1B legislation, and send the cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this cloture vote will occur, unless there is some intervening agreement, on Tuesday. I ask unanimous consent the cloture vote occur immediately following the passage of H.R. 4444, and the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield on another point? He and I have discussed the fact that we need to make sure that, wherever possible, some of these high-tech jobs be available in areas now that are underserved--rural areas, including my own State and the State of North Dakota and several other States. I think Nebraska would be in that group. You know, you can't direct where those jobs go, but we could encourage some of those programs, some of these people to be taken into areas where there are not now opportunities, that training be available for them. That certainly would be very attractive so we do not have the high-tech industry only concentrated on the west coast and Northern Virginia or in some other areas, but to try to spread it as much as possible. That is an issue I would like us to consider. With regard to the immigrant problems, I think, as he knows, we have in the past supported some movement in that area. I believe there is some application now to Nicaraguans that are here. Of course that causes some of the problems. Some of their neighbors don't have that same consideration. We should look at this issue. We should do it thoughtfully. But that is one of the problems. H-1B has been pending a long time. We need to get it done. The argument can be made that these are different issues. For instance, I understand the other issues mentioned would not be relevant postcloture to the bill, but I do think it is going to be an issue that is going to be discussed as we get to the end of this session to see if there is some way some of those can be addressed. The Senator is talking, in some instances, about a relatively small number of people. One he mentioned was Liberian immigrants, focused primarily on one State. Maybe something can be done on that. I want us to find a way to get this bill done. It has been dragging for 6 months. We are down to the last 2 weeks of the fiscal year. I am trying to set up a process that guarantees we get to a conclusion while we continue to work with those on both sides who may have objections. The problem we have is, if you include these three, four, or five, you will have other people who will say: What about this issue, that would cause a filibuster to begin and we would wind up having to pull down the bill. I would rather that not be the end result.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now withdraw the motion to proceed.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you. Now I have a final question. Do the advisory committees function in much the same way in reviewing title II and title III projects?

Mr. LOTT. Let me ask a second question. Is it your view that the language of section 102(d)(1)(B) and section 102(c)(1)(B) allows the counties to divide their project funds between title II and title III projects as they choose?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to begin my comments by commending the determined efforts of my friends from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, and my friend from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, on Behalf of rural counties. I would like to ask my colleague from Idaho a few questions about S. 1608. First, I am concerned about the composition of the resource advisory committees in section 205(d) of the bill. The bill identifies 3 groups of community interests that must be represented, and provides examples in each group. Is it the mangers' intent that the Secretary concerned will pick a representative from each example interest if that interest resides in the local area served by the advisory committee?

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for these clarifications, and hope that the affected agencies will implement this law accordingly.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today marks the passage of S. 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This bill is a promising example of bipartisanship and what can be accomplished when members of this body work together. Senator Wyden and Senator Craig have worked furiously over the past year to put together a bill that gives relief to communities in economic stress due to changes in management on our Federal lands. Our national forests need the involvement of Federal, State, and local interests to restore ecosystems, provide stewardship opportunities and maintain forest infrastructure. This bill attempts to bring people together to solve land management issues, working to create healthy forests and healthy communities. S. 1608 will create resource advisory committees with representatives from across the spectrum, to develop stewardship projects on their surrounding Federal lands. These projects, after approval from the Secretary, will create jobs for local people, and healthy forests for all. As we watch our forests go up in smoke all over the west, and parts of the south, we are reminded how important healthy forests are to all of us. S. 1608 provides resources for healthy communities and forests. By providing the mechanism, and the stable payments for counties to fund their local infrastructure, roads will be maintained, fire departments will be staffed and prepared, and rural communities will once again feel secure in knowing their families will be protected, because their community infrastructure is in place and has a stable source of funding. S. 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and community Self Determination Act is a critical step toward guaranteeing adequate educational funding for forest communities, while ensuring a stable, consistent source of general treasury funding for ecosystem restoration, forest infrastructure maintenance and stewardship projects on our national forest land. Parents will see a substantial increase in the amount of money directed toward education in public schools. We have counties in this country who have been forced to reduce the school week to 4 days, eliminate after-school activities like band and athletics, because of a lack of money to fund the schools. S. 1608 works to remedy this problem by sending more money to these counties for the education of their children. In my home state of Mississippi, the timber industry is the lifeblood of many of these small counties. We hear people say everyday that our children are our future. I will say it again today--our children are our future, and S. 1608 secures the education of our children in many of the communities in desperate need of help. I care deeply about the health of this country's communities, schools, and forests, and therefore, I commend the valiant efforts of Senator Craig and Senator Wyden for their work on S. 1608. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I support and will vote for granting permanent normal trade relations status to the People's Republic of China . I will do so because the agreement negotiated between the United States and China will help level the playing field for a wide range of American companies who seek to do business in China. I also support the bipartisan amendment offered by Senators Fred Thompson and Robert Torricelli to require certain reports and to impose sanctions on entities identified by the President for their sale or transfer of dangerous technology to rogue regimes. We cannot stand idly by while China continues to proliferate nuclear weapon and missile technology to unstable regions. There are numerous reports that this pattern of dangerous behavior by Beijing is continuing. For example, the CIA Director George Tenet recently issued a report to Congress on recent developments in proliferation. That report asserts that China has increased its missile-related assistance to Pakistan and continues to provide missile-related assistance to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. These are governments which our own State Department has labeled as state sponsors of terrorism. Who are the ultimate targets for these missiles and nuclear and chemical weapons in the hands of terrorist states? It is the American people, our friends and allies, and our military forces deployed in hot-spots such as the Persian Gulf. Let me state it differently: When China proliferates dangerous technology to dangerous states, it directly and very negatively affects our national security. The Clinton administration says it, too, is concerned about this behavior. But it has failed--resoundingly failed--to stop it. Our CIA tells us that these activities are on-going today. So we need to do more, and this bipartisan amendment makes a strong statement that either this proliferation behavior stops or real and credible penalties will be imposed. I say to my colleagues who, like me, support granting PNTR for China: Let's not lose sight of the national security issues at stake here. I, like Senator Thompson, would have preferred to consider this important legislation on another bill and not on H.R. 4444. In fact, I made every effort to see to it that the Thompson-Torricelli legislation could be considered either as a free-standing measure or as an amendment to some other piece of legislation. However, my efforts to have the Thompson-Torricelli amendment considered separate from the China PNTR legislation was blocked. Therefore, we now are faced with a vote on the Thompson-Torricelli amendment on H.R. 4444. Given this situation, I will support the amendment and oppose the motion to table.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Select Committee on Intelligence has received a request from the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a certified copy of the testimony of former Director of Central Intelligence John M. Deutch during a February 22, 2000 closed committee hearing, in connection with the Bureau's pending inquiry into the alleged improper handling of classified information by Mr. Deutch. This resolution would authorize the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, acting jointly, to provide the certified copy of the closed hearing transcript in response to this request, utilizing appropriate security procedures.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.