Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the defense authorization bill and immediately begin debate on the Allard amendment regarding the Civil Air Patrol. A vote in relation to the Allard amendment has been ordered for 10 a.m. I understand discussions are still continuing with regard to that amendment. Other amendments will be offered, I am sure. They are pending. I am sure Senators will want to have them offered and considered one way or another today. There will be votes throughout the day. It is the intention of the managers--and certainly my intention--to complete action on this bill. I urge the managers to complete action during today, not tonight. There are a number of Senators who are planning on proceeding to their States tonight, late tonight, or early in the morning, so we really need to get this legislation completed. I commend the managers on both sides of the aisle for the work they have done, but I do think we need to get a definite list of amendments locked in. Otherwise, I am sure some Senators will continue to think of ideas they may want to have addressed. If Senators have amendments they want to have considered today, they need to see the managers during this next vote. After that, we hope to limit the amendments, limit the time, get the votes, and complete this work. This is very important legislation that needs to be completed and must be completed before tonight. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to Dr. Tom Tewell. I understand he is from the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York City, and he is a friend of the Chaplain. A friend of the Chaplain is a friend of us all. We appreciate having you here with us today.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the President pro tempore.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for his comments and I appreciate his concerns. I am pleased to agree to work closely with the Senator from Michigan during the conference on this bill, and to solicit the views of the administration, on how this provision will be implemented and in an effort to address his concerns.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in light of that objection, I ask consent that when the Senate considers H.R. 1555--that is the intelligence authorization bill--following the opening statement by the manager, Senator Kyl be recognized to offer an amendment relative to national security at the Department of Energy; I further ask consent that if this agreement is agreed to, amendment No. 446 be withdrawn, following 60 minutes of debate to be equally divided between Senators Kyl and Domenici and Reid and Levin, or their designees.

Mr. LOTT. I will so amend my request.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on July 1, 1999, Donald E. Meiners will retire from Entergy Mississippi after 39 years of service. Don started as a salesman in Jackson and culminated as the president and chief executive officer. Mr. Meiners rose rapidly in the company and quickly became one of its officers. He has worked in marketing, operations and customer services, and within various subsidiaries of the company requiring frequent moves. Entergy recognized his leadership capabilities early, and he excelled at each challenge. He has also been very involved in the civic aspects of his community. He has taken on different roles from steering various United Way Campaigns to chairing the Chambers of Commerce for Jackson and Vicksburg, to leading MetroJackson's Housing Partnership and the Newcomen Society of Mississippi. Don has also supported the Executive Women's International Night, Mississippi Museum of Art, International Ballet Competition, Jackson Symphony Orchestra, and the Boys and Girls Club of America. His efforts have ensured that all Mississippians can be exposed to the full richness of the Magnolia State's culture. Mr. Meiners has made a personal commitment to education by serving on the boards of the Mississippi State University Foundation, Tougaloo College, Jackson State, and the Mississippi University for Women. Through these post-secondary institutions, he wanted to foster an atmosphere that inspired all Mississippians to reach up and participate in our national prosperity by having essential educational skills. He has also served or is currently serving on the boards of the Trustmark National Bank, Institute for Technology Development and Mississippi Manufacturers Association. Here, his focus has been to promote the right type of job producing capacity in my home state. As a result of his contributions to Mississippi, Mr. Meiners has been recognized as the Governor's Volunteer of the Year, Mississippi's Economic Development Outstanding Volunteer of the Year, Goodwill's Outstanding Volunteer, and he received the Hope Award from Mississippi's Multiple Sclerosis Chapter. It is clear that he has given his time and energy to all facets of Mississippi. Mr. Meiners is a family man caring for four generations of his relatives. He is devoted to Patricia Stone, his high school sweetheart and wife for 42 years. He also cares for his 90-year-old father. His sons, Christopher and Charles, have truly made him proud, and his two granddaughters, Hannah and Mallory light up his life. He is also an active member of Christ United Methodist Church. I must not forget to mention that Don is a Mississippi State University Bulldog with a degree in electrical engineering. This Rebel found a way to look past this personal educational flaw. No, seriously, I am proud to call Don, a Hazlehurst native, my friend. I respect his professionalism and dedication to Mississippi. He is a true southern gentleman, and he will be missed. I wish Don and Pat the best as they pursue a well-earned retirement.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe the morning hour has expired. I move for the regular order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Warner. Let me point out another instance of another Secretary of the Navy, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island. When he was Secretary of the Navy, the decision was made, and it was very difficult, but the decision was made to basically mothball the Davisville, RI, Seabee base. I think it is still maintained in a state of readiness, but the number of troops and employees were substantially reduced. But he had done his job. We have done our job in the past without a commission. By the way, right now there are lawyers and various people going around the States saying, get ready, there is going to be another BRAC, you better hire me so I can make sure your case is made. I think that is wrong and I thank you for your leadership on this issue. Mr. President, I urge the Members to vote against this base closure commission proposal. I have always opposed this procedure. I opposed it in the House in the eighties, even though I remember talking to Congressman Armey from Texas about the merits and demerits and how he could proceed to get it done. He did it quite well. We have been through not one, not two, but 2\1/2\ rounds of base closure commissions. I think it is wrong in principle, because we are abdicating, once again, our responsibility to make decisions about what is best for a strong national defense to a commission. For 100 years, if bases, depots, or facilities needed to be closed, the Department of Defense made recommendations to Congress, the Appropriations Committee reviewed the recommendations and made decisions, and bases and facilities were closed. I know of three in my own State of Mississippi that were closed in the fifties and sixties, probably with good justification. I can remember when the Secretary of the Navy was John Warner of Virginia. Some tough decisions were made, recommendations were made to the Congress, and facilities were closed. The same thing occurred when Senator Chafee was Secretary of the Navy. That system worked for 100 years. Some 15 or 20 years ago, it got harder and harder to get Congress to go along with this and the commission idea came along. I think we ought to go back and do it the way it was originally intended. Let's do our job. I think when Members say we will never have any facilities closed, history belies that fact. My next point is, we have been through these 2\1/2\ rounds. They were a terrible experience for the communities and for the States involved that have facilities that are impacted. I maintain that we haven't yet quite felt the impact or gotten the benefit of the base closure rounds that have already been done. We still have facilities that have not been completely closed or the environmental cleanup has not been accomplished. We don't know whether we really saved money or not. I urge we not go to another round until we have been able to assess completely how the earlier rounds worked or didn't work, what the cleanup costs were, what the real impact was on the communities. I must say, the timing is terrible, at a time when we are asking our military men and women for more and more in terms of steaming time, time spent on remote assignments, and, in fact, at this very moment Americans are involved in a bombing campaign in the Balkans. Just last week we passed legislation providing about half a billion dollars to add to facilities in Europe. At a time when we are spending more money for facilities in Europe to upgrade or replace facilities that probably we should have already done, we are talking about setting up a process to close them in the United States. I don't think that is very wise. It also comes at a time when our readiness is falling, when our retention and recruitment is declining. We are trying to do something about that by adding some money for readiness and for the future needs of the military, to increase the pay for our military men and women. This is just one more little stick in the eye that will affect, I think, adversely, the morale of our military men and women. Finally, and not the least, I maintain that last time politics got very much involved in the base closure round. Bases that were supposed to be closed in California and Texas found a way to evade that. It was not just one or two States; it happened in several different places. I don't think the system worked very well. I don't think we should do this now. I think we ought to wait and assess what has happened, do it at a time when we are not basically at war. Let's wait until the next administration comes in. We don't know whether it will be Republican or Democrat. Let's take a look at this thing in 2001. If, in fact, we haven't been able to get rid of some of the excess or unneeded facilities, and if we are not at war, if we have been able to turn around our needs for readiness and the morale and retention of our troops, I will take a look at it. I don't think this is the right thing to do. I don't think it is the right time. I think it is wrong in principle. I could have probably found a way to limit this base closure in a way that would have been responsible, and it would also probably have spared my own State, but I thought that was wrong. I don't think I ought to be trying to find a way to spare my own situation and let others bear the brunt of the decision. We ought to do it all the way or not. What we ought to do is let the Pentagon make the recommendations and act on them. Finally, any Members who think this is fine, don't worry, it will affect somebody else, I have a list here of bases, depots, and facilities that were on the list of earlier base closure rounds that were not closed. These are the likely facilities to be affected. This is not a free vote in isolation, where Members can let somebody else pay the piper. Members can take a look and see how it would impact New York or Michigan or Ohio before casting a vote. Ask yourself when you look at the facilities: Are these excess? Are these unneeded facilities? I think that might affect your decision. We should defeat this. We should go on and pass this very good defense authorization bill that has been developed by the committee, without this provision in there. Maybe another day, another time, would see it differently or we would need to vote differently, but not here and now. I urge the defeat of the base closure commission amendment. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have followed the base closure recommendations, the so-called BRAC issues, for many years, going back to my years in the House. We have been down this old BRAC road several times before. I have always been opposed to this approach. I remember standing in the center well of the House years ago, talking to Congressman Armey of Texas. He was talking about his concept. I told him that I thought it was an abdication of responsibility, but if he wanted to pursue it, here is how to do it, and here is how it has to come through the Rules Committee. He took notes copiously and pursued it and it went through. I think this is one more example where we and the administrations are avoiding the tough choices. For years, for 100 years, when there was a need to close a base, the administration, the Pentagon, the Department of Defense sent up recommendations of surplus or unneeded bases that Congress, through the authorization process, appropriations process, considered those recommendations and made a decision to close them or not. Over the years, as it became more and more difficult to close remaining bases or to make increasingly tough decisions, these so- called BRAC rounds gained popularity and were pushed and, in fact, passed through the Congress. I don't think this is the way it should be done and I maintain it has not worked well. In many cases, bases were closed, including several in my State. I go quite often now to those former bases as we continue to work to get new business and industry to come into those facilities. The tough decisions were made. We did our job. So the first thing I recommended is let's do our job. I discussed that with Secretary of Defense Cohen and he, of course, smiled and said yes, but we probably won't get them closed. I believe if the case is made and they recommend a surplus, that could be done--maybe not as many as they would like, but the process is there and we should honor that process. We have had these base closure proceedings in the past. They have been painful. They cause tremendous upheavals in the defense community. In the communities where it happens, millions of dollars have been spent trying to defend against closures or, once a closure decision has been made, trying to find a way to make use of the base. For such communities, losing a base is more than just an economic loss; it is an emotional loss and a blow to the core of their identity. These are just not nameless, faceless people involved. In most military communities, personnel from the base are church leaders, little league coaches, and scout masters, not just men and women with money to spend. Communities that lose a base lose much more than economic well-being; they lose friends, neighbors, and community leaders. I think it is very important that we remember what this process does to communities and to the people who are involved. I maintain the ones that we have had in the past have worked pretty well, although some bases are still not fully closed. The environmental cleanups have not happened in other instances. Many of these facilities, now, are just sitting there. I recommend before we go to another round, if we ever do, of base closures, we ought to let the ones that have already been recommended fully run out the string. Let's see what we have saved. I am told a good bit of money will be saved this year from the base closures. But if you read the little asterisk down at the bottom, it doesn't include, for instance, environmental cleanup costs. So if you look at the impact this has had on our communities, on our defense installations, and what has actually come from it, I think it is not good judgment to go forward with another round now. Think about what we are doing. Think about the timing. Here we are at a time when our defense capabilities are being stretched to the maximum steaming time, time our men and women are out on ships and they are on remote assignments, at a time when our troops are in combat this very day, we are talking about closing installations or closing facilities back here at home. Also, a side note: Just last week we passed a bill that provided money for construction of more military facilities in Europe, so we are going to be adding a half billion dollars in new construction in Europe. Maybe it is needed. Maybe that says we have acted too hastily in drawing down in Europe. We allowed our facilities--the runways, the air traffic control towers, the housing facilities--to deteriorate even there. But at a time when we are going to be spending money in Europe, we are talking about cutting back here at home. Are American servicemembers going to return to find that while the bases overseas are being rebuilt there are ``For Rent'' signs on the ones they left back home in the United States? I think, first of all, the whole idea of doing it through a commission is not wise. Second, I do not think we have completed the process of the base closure decisions that have already been made. Third, the timing could not be worse. Let's look at this more. Let's make sure we can stop the free fall our defense has been going through in readiness, in morale of our troops, in recruitment and retention. It is just one more factor that can serve as a discouragement to our men and women in the military. Some people say, let's go ahead and do it, the Department of Defense wants to do it this way--instead of doing their job, in my opinion--and it probably will not affect me. I have a list I recommend Senators review before they cast their votes. This list will be available in the Senators' cloakrooms. I will have them on desks. I will have it in my hand. Look at the bases that were on the list that were not closed in the past. These will be the ones that probably would be first choice to be reviewed again. Just in the State of California, you are talking about 15 facilities. It covers the entire country. It covers facilities in almost every State. When I look down this list, it really scares me, the facilities that could be considered for closing, what it would do in those communities and what it would do to our military capabilities. So take a look at this list before you cast this vote. Maybe sometime in the future we will need to take another look at it. But I still think there is fallout from the fact that the last closure did become tangled up in political decisions. There is a very strong feeling that some of the decisions recommended by the BRAC were changed or evaded subsequently. I remember Secretary of Defense Cohen believing very strongly he was not given the information he was entitled to when the Base Closure Commission was acting involving the State of Maine. We need to spend more time thinking about this. We should get over this hump we are at right now of our military capability and the involvement we have now in the Balkans. Maybe another year. I will tell you what I think we ought to do. Let's try doing it the way it was done for 100 years. Let's try doing it through the normal process. I support commissions sometimes. I guess the day might come when I would support one in this area. But I do not think this is the right time and I do not think this is the right way to go about it. If the DOD feels further base closures are needed, the most logical solution I see is for the Pentagon to identify bases it no longer decides are necessary and submit these findings to us. Show the Congress where the redundancy and obsolescence are. I have full faith that this body is capable of looking objectively at our defense needs and determining whether a base has outlived its usefulness. Where is accountability in the BRAC process? We in Congress should not be abdicating congressional authority to some ad hoc commission. In this time of severe military drawdowns and austere budget cuts, I think it is all too easy for us to pass the buck and allow a commission, which has no obligation to answer to any constituency, to further strip our military. I do not think we were elected to leave all the difficult choices to a special commission. The average American feels very strongly about our national defense, and its important that the buck stops here when it comes to ensuring our military readiness. So I urge my colleagues, before they vote, look at this list. Think carefully about what you are doing. Can we be assured this will be done in a totally objective way? What will be its impact on our military right now? I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, for his thoughtfulness in this area. He has generally, in the past, been supportive of this effort, even when it affected his own State. He has stood up and said, We will do our own part. You have to commend him for that. But he, this time, has said this is not the right time; maybe another day, maybe another way, but not now. That is what I hope the Senate will do. I hope the Senate will vote against this next round at this time. I might emphasize, earlier on there was a recommendation we have two rounds, 2001-2005. It was considered we would exclude certain areas and allow the others to go forward. I think the principle of that is wrong. My own State might be exempted and everybody else might have to deal with it--that is wrong. We should not do things that way. We should have a fair, across-the-board policy. I think that is the way we should do it. I yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could inquire about time. It is 1:30 now; are we scheduled to vote on base closure at 1:45?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of myself, and Senators Warner, Shelby, Murkowski, Domenici, Specter, Thomas, Kyl, and Hutchinson. This package is the product of the serious investigative and oversight work performed by the relevant committees and other Senators who have devoted considerable attention to the issues of satellite exports, Chinese espionage, lax security at DOE facilities, foreign counterintelligence wiretaps, and more. I commend my cosponsors and others for their helpful efforts in this regard. I have stated that the damage to U.S. national security as a result of China's nuclear espionage is probably the greatest I have seen in my entire career. And, unfortunately, the administration's inattention to--or even hostility towards--counterintelligence and security has magnified this breach. It is simply incredible that China has acquired sensitive, classified information about every nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal. But this apparently is precisely what happened. It is simply incredible that American companies illegally provided information to the Chinese that will allow them to improve their long- range missiles aimed at American cities. But this apparently is exactly what happened. It is simply incredible that American exports were delivered to certain Chinese facilities that will assist their weapons of mass destruction program. But this apparently is exactly what happened. It is simply incredible that it took this administration 2 years from the date the National Security Adviser was first briefed by DOE officials on the problem of Chinese espionage at the nuclear weapons laboratories, to sign a new Presidential directive to strengthen counterintelligence at the labs and elsewhere. But this apparently is exactly what happened. And, after all this, it is simply incredible that the President would claim that all this damage was a result of actions of previous administrations and that he had not been told of any espionage that had occurred on his watch. But this is exactly what the President said in a mid-March press conference. As I have stated previously, the Congress must take several steps to better understand what happened and how it happened, and to lessen the likelihood of a recurrence of such events in the future. First, we must aggressively probe the administration to determine the facts. We know much of what happened. But we don't have all the facts, and we certainly don't know why certain events unfolded the way they did. We need to get to the bottom of that. Several committees are exploring aspects of this scandal, and it is multi-faceted: DOE security; whistleblower protections; counterintelligence at the FBI; CIA operations; export controls; illegal campaign contributions; the Justice Department; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA; DOD monitoring of satellite launches in China; waivers of laws for companies under investigation for illegal activities; and much, much more. Second, we must take all reasonable steps now to remedy problems we have identified to date. Does this mean that the actions recommended in this bill, or in this amendment, will solve the problem of lab security for all time? Of course not. But they do represent important first steps in addressing the myriad problems that have emerged during the various on-going investigations. For example, we know that security and counter-intelligence at the labs was--and is--woefully inadequate. We can take steps to begin to fix that problem. We know that the Clinton Commerce Department failed miserably to adequately control and protect national security information as it relates to commercial communications satellites and rocket launchers. We took steps last year in the Defense authorization bill to help protect national security by transferring from Commerce to State the responsibility for reviewing license applications for such satellites. Third, we must hold appropriate executive branch officials accountable for their actions. This means we need to understand why certain Clinton administration officials acted the way they did. Why, for example, were DOE intelligence officials told they could not brief the Congress on aspects of this espionage investigation and its implications? Why did the Reno Justice Department refuse to approve a wiretap request? Why was a certain suspect's computer not searched much, much earlier when, in fact, the suspect had agreed several years earlier to such a search? And why was a waiver granted for the export of a satellite built by an American company that was under investigation by the Department of Justice and whose head was the single largest individual contributor to the Democratic National Committee? In posing these and other questions, does this mean the Senate is on some partisan witch-hunt? Absolutely not. I recognize that a full understanding of this issue requires going back decades. For example, the reports recently issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Cox Committee in the House reviewed documents from prior administrations. But simply saying that errors were made in previous administrations cannot and does not absolve this President and this administration from responsibility. In fact, this administration's record in the area of security and counter-intelligence, in its relations with China, and in several other areas, leaves much to be desired. As I said before, there are some steps we can and should take now. For example, the Defense authorization bill before us now proposes several important measures regarding Department of Energy security and counterintelligence. Likewise, the intelligence authorization bill includes several legislative proposals on this topic as well. My amendment is entirely consistent with, and indeed builds upon, those two vital legislative measures. Allow me to describe what this amendment proposes to do. First, it seeks to address the Loral episode, wherein the President approved a waiver for the export of a Loral satellite for launch on a Chinese rocket at the same time Loral was under investigation by the Justice Department for possible criminal wrong-doing. This amendment requires the President to notify the Congress whenever an investigation is undertaken of an alleged violation of U.S. export control laws in connection with the export of a commercial satellite of U.S. origin. It also requires the President to notify the Congress whenever an export license or waiver is granted on behalf of any U.S. person or firm that is the subject of a criminal investigation. I am absolutely convinced that had these ``sunshine'' provisions been in effect at the time of the Loral waiver decision, I doubt very seriously that the President would have issued his decision in favor of Loral. Second, the amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to undertake certain actions that would significantly enhance the performance and effectiveness of the DOD program for monitoring so-called ``satellite launch campaigns'' in China and elsewhere. For instance, under this amendment, the DOD monitoring officials will be given authority to halt a launch campaign if they felt U.S. national security was being compromised. In addition, the Secretary will be obligated to establish appropriate professional and technical qualifications, as well as training programs, for such personnel, and increase the number of such monitors. Furthermore, to remove any ambiguity as to what technical information may be shared by U.S. contractors during a launch campaign, the amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to review and improve guidelines for such discussions. Finally, it requires the Secretary to establish a counter intelligence program within the organization responsible for performing such monitoring functions. Third, my amendment enhances the intelligence community's role in the export license review process. This responds to a clear need for greater insight by the State Department and other license-reviewing agencies into the Chinese and other entities involved in space launch and ballistic missile programs. In this regard, it is worth noting that the intelligence community played a very modest role in reviewing the license applications for exports that subsequently were deemed to have harmed national security. This section also requires a report by the Director of Central Intelligence on the efforts of foreign governments to acquire sensitive U.S. technology and technical information. Fourth, based on concerns that China continues to proliferate missile and missile technology to Pakistan and Iran, this amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the People's Republic of China should not be permitted to join the Missile Technology Control Regime, MTCR, as a member until Beijing has demonstrated a sustained commitment to missile nonproliferation and adopted an effective export control system. Any honest appraisal would lead one to the conclusion, I believe, that China has not demonstrated such a commitment and does not have in place effective export controls. Now we know, from documents released by the White House as part of the Senate's investigation, that the Clinton administration wanted to bring the PRC into the MTCR as a means of shielding Beijing from missile proliferation sanctions laws now on the books. This section sends a strong signal that such an approach should not be undertaken. Fifth, the amendment expresses strong support for stimulating the expansion of the commercial space launch industry here in America. As we have seen recently with a number of failed U.S. rocket launches, there is a crying need to improve the performance of U.S.-built and launched rockets. This amendment strongly encourages efforts to promote the domestic commercial space launch industry, including through the elimination of legal or regulatory barriers to long-term competitiveness. The amendment also urges a review of the current policy of permitting the export of commercial satellites of U.S. origin to the PRC for launch and suggests that, if a decision is made to phase-out the policy, then launches of such satellites in the PRC should occur only if they are licensed as of the commencement of the phase-out of the policy and additional actions are taken to minimize the transfer of technology to the PRC during the course of such launches. Sixth, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to provide information to U.S. satellite manufacturers when a license application is denied. This addresses a legitimate concern expressed by U.S. industry about the current export control process. I not that each of these recommendations was included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's ``Report on Impacts to U.S. National Security of Advanced Satellite Technology Exports to the PRC and the PRC's Efforts Influence U.S. Policy.'' That report was approved by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, so there is nothing partisan whatsoever in these recommendations. My amendment also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report on the military balance in the Taiwan Straits, similar to the report delivered to the Congress earlier this year. That report, my colleagues may recall, was both informative and deeply troubling in its assessment that the PRC has underway a massive buildup of missile forces opposite our friend, Taiwan. Annual submission of this report will assist the Congress in working with the administration in assessing future lists of defense articles and services requested by Taiwan as part of the annual arms sales talks between the U.S. and Taiwan. Eighth, the amendment proposes a mechanism for determining the extent to which then-Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary's ``Openness Initiative'' resulted in the release of highly-classified nuclear secrets. We already know, for example, that some material has been publicly-released that contained highly-sensitive ``restricted Data'' or ``Formerly Restricted Data.'' While we are rightly concerned about what nuclear weapons design or other sensitive information has been stolen through espionage, at the same time we must be vigilant in ensuring that Mrs. O'Leary's initiative was not used, and any future declassification measures will not be used, to provide nuclear know-how to would-be proliferators in Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere. Ninth, the amendment proposes putting the FBI in charge of conducting security background investigations of DOE laboratory employees, versus the Office of Personnel Management as is currently the case. I applaud the Armed Services Committee for including additional funds in their bill for addressing the current backlog of security investigations. Tenth, and lastly, the amendment proposes increased counterintelligence training and other measures to ensure classified information is protected during DOE laboratory-to-laboratory exchanges, should such exchanges occur in the future. For example, having trained counter-intelligence experts go along on any and all visits of lab employees to sensitive countries, is a small but useful step in the direction of enhanced security. Mr. President, I readily concede that this package of amendments will not solve all security problems at the Nation's nuclear weapons laboratories. Nor will it solve the myriad problems identified to date in the Senate's on-going investigation of the damage to U.S. national security from the export of satellites to the PRC or from Chinese nuclear espionage. These are, as I mentioned before, small but useful steps to address known deficiencies. Most of these recommendations stem from the bipartisan report issued by the Intelligence Committee. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. In summary, good work has been done by the Cox committee in the House of Representatives. They should be commended for the work they have done in this critical area. They should be commended for the fact that it has been bipartisan. It would have been easy for them to veer into areas or procedures that would have made it very partisan. They did not do that. The same thing is true in the Senate. The Senate has chosen so far not to have a select committee or a joint committee. The Senate has continued to try to do this in the normal way. We have had hearings by the Intelligence Committee. They have done very good work. Chairman Shelby has been thoughtful and relentless, and he continues in that way. The Armed Services Committee, under Senator Warner, the Energy Committee, under Senator Murkowski, Foreign Relations, Governmental Affairs--all the committees with jurisdiction in this area have been having hearings, they have had witnesses, and they have been coming up with recommendations. As a matter of fact, some of the recommendations that have been developed are included in this Department of Defense authorization bill. I understand other proposed changes to deal with these security lapses and with counterintelligence will be included in the intelligence authorization bill that will come up in early June. I do not believe we should rush to judgment. We should make sure we understand the full ramifications of what has happened. We should not say it has been just this administration or that administration or the other administration. This is about the security of our country. I agree with Congressman Dicks when he quoted former Senator Henry Jackson about how, when it comes to national security, we should all just pursue it as Americans. This amendment I have just sent to the desk is a further outgrowth of some of the information we have found through some of the hearings that have occurred. There were some provisions in it that I am sure would have evoked some criticism, and we have taken those out, so that we can take our time and deal more thoughtfully with it over a period of time. We are going to have to deal with the Export Administration and the fact that law was allowed to lapse back in 1995. But there are some things we can do now. To reiterate, this is what this amendment will do: First, it requires the President to notify the Congress whenever an investigation is undertaken of an alleged violation of U.S. export control laws in connection with the export of a commercial satellite of U.S. origin. It will also require the President to notify the Congress whenever an export license or waiver is granted on behalf of any U.S. person or firm that is the subject of a criminal investigation. Second, the amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to undertake certain actions that would significantly enhance the performance and effectiveness of the DOD program for monitoring so-called satellite launch campaigns in China and elsewhere. Third, the amendment will enhance the intelligence community's role in the export license review process and requires a report by the DCI on the efforts of foreign governments to acquire sensitive U.S. technology and technical information. Fourth, the amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the People's Republic of China should not be permitted to join the Missile Technology Control Regime as a member until Beijing has demonstrated a sustained commitment to missile nonproliferation and adopted an effective export control system. The amendment expresses strong support for stimulating the expansion of the commercial space launch industry in America. This amendment strongly encourages efforts to promote the domestic commercial space launch industry. That is why we have seen more of this activity occur in other countries, particularly China and even Russia, because we do not have that domestic commercial space launch capability here. We should eliminate legal or regulatory barriers to long-term competitiveness. The amendment also urges a review of the current policy of permitting the export of commercial satellites of U.S. origin to the PRC for launch. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to provide information to U.S. satellite manufacturers when a license application is denied. The amendment also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report on the military balance in the Taiwan Straits, similar to the report developed earlier this year and was delivered to the Congress. The amendment proposes a mechanism for determining the extent to which classified nuclear weapons information has been released by the Department of Energy. It proposes putting the FBI in charge of conducting security background investigations of DOE Laboratory employees versus OPM. It seems to me that really is beyond the capabilities of the Office of Personnel Management. Surely, the FBI would be better conducting the security background investigations. This does not call for putting the FBI totally in charge of security at our Labs, for instance. That is something we need to think about more. I had thought the FBI should be in charge, and there are some limitations in that area. That is an area we should think about a lot more. We should work through the committee process. We should think together in a bipartisan way about how to do it. Clearly, the security at our Laboratories has to be revised. We have to have a much better counterintelligence process, and our committees are working on that. Last, the committee proposes increased counterintelligence training and other measures to ensure classified information is protected during DOE Laboratory-to-Laboratory exchanges. These are pieces that I think Senators can agree on across the board. They are targeted at dealing with the problem, not trying to fix blame, not claiming that this is going to solve all the problems. But these are some things we can do now that will help secure these Laboratories in the future and get information we need and give enhanced capabilities to the intelligence communities. I urge my colleagues to review it. It has been, of course, considered by the committees that have jurisdiction. We have provided copies of it to the minority, and we invite their participation. I believe this is something that can be bipartisan and can be accepted, after reasonable debate, overwhelmingly. I certainly hope so. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I see no other Senator here at this moment. I believe there is another Senator who will be here at about 10:30 to offer another amendment, but I would like to submit an amendment for consideration at this point. Amendment No. 394 (Purpose: To improve the monitoring of the export of advanced satellite technology, to require annual reports with respect to Taiwan, and to improve the provisions relating to safeguards, security, and counterintelligence at Department of Energy facilities)

Mr. LOTT. I just say, I appreciate your comments and your attitude. If we have problems, we can address those problems in a bipartisan way to deal with the future. And that is my intent. I will be glad to work with you. Thank you for your comments.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Specter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Hutchinson) proposed an amendment to the bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; as follows: On page 387, below line 24, add the following:

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, 137 years ago today, Major General Henry W. Halleck and his 120,000 man strong Union Army commenced the siege of Corinth, Mississippi. The ensuing six month battle between General Halleck's federal troops and General P. G. T. Beauregard's 53,000 Confederate defenders marked a turning point in the war between the states. It was a fierce engagement over a mere 16 square feet parcel. This small piece of real estate was of critical strategic importance to both the North and the South. It was in Corinth, Mississippi that the Memphis and Charleston and Mobile and Ohio Railroads crossed paths. This vital east-west and north-south railroad junction served as a passageway for troops and supplies moving from Illinois to Alabama and from Tennessee to points further east such as South Carolina and Virginia. Ed Bearss, Chief Historian Emeritus of the National Park Service, stated that ``during the Spring of 1862, Corinth was the most important city in the Confederacy and almost the length of the War . . . because of the railroads.'' In fact, because of its status as a vital rail hub, the town was occupied by either Confederate or Union forces from 1861 to 1865. It also served as a springboard for the careers of over 200 leading Confederate and Federal generals who were stationed in Corinth at one time or another. A figure matched by few other locations. Corinth is a city that exemplifies the trials and tribulations experienced by soldiers and civilians throughout the Civil War. A town whose railways lied at the center of a grand military chess match. An area, like many others north and south of the Mason-Dixon line, racked by the ravages of war. Even with its new status as a National Historic Landmark, Corinth is still considered a ``Civil War Landmark At Risk.'' The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, chartered by Congress to assess threats to America's premier historic sites, identified Corinth as a priority one battlefield in critical need of coordinated nationwide action by the year 2000. Local, state, and national preservation groups agree. And, so do I. Mr. President, today, I am proud and honored to introduce the Corinth Battlefield Preservation Act of 1999. This much needed legislation would provide further protection for one of America's most important Civil War sites by establishing Corinth as a unit of the Shiloh National Military Park. The 106th Congress needs to add the Corinth Battlefield and its surrounding sites to the National Park System given the area's pivotal role in American history. It is also appropriate for Congress to establish Corinth as a unit of the Shiloh National Military Park as these two sites were indelibly linked during the Civil War. The 1862 battle of Shiloh was actually the first strike in the Union force's overall Corinth Campaign. It was in April 1862, that federal and southern forces competing for control over Corinth first struggled in the Battle of Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing. The battle for Corinth also had international implications. As a result of the Union's victory, the British government chose not to officially recognize the Confederacy. The conflict in and around Corinth eventually included the Battles of Iuka, Tupelo, and Brices' Crossroads, as well as engagements in Booneville, Rienzi, Ripley, and numerous skirmishes in southwest Tennessee and northeast Alabama. In 1862, Union General Halleck said ``Richmond and Corinth . . . are the greatest strategic points of the war, and our success at these points should be insured at all hazards.'' Halleck's subordinate, General Ulysses S. Grant, regarded Corinth as ``the great strategic position in the west between the Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers and between Nashville and Vicksburg.'' In arguing for the defense of Corinth, Confederate General Beauregard stated to General Samual Cooper, Adjutant and Inspector General of the Confederate States Army that, ``if defeated here [in Corinth,] we lose the Mississippi Valley and probably our cause, whereas we could even afford to lose for a while Charleston and Savannah for the purpose of defeating Buell's army, which would not only insure us the valley of the Mississippi, but our independence.'' Corinth's strategic importance to both armies led to some of the bloodiest battles in the Western Theater. Tens of thousands of soldiers were killed or wounded in this bitter offensive. It was also here that thousands of war refugees, mostly African- Americans from Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama, sought shelter with the Union Army in Corinth. After President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, the federal army created a model ``Contraband Camp.'' By the Spring of 1863, the camp housed around 4,000 freedmen. Almost half of these freedmen joined the ``First Alabama Infantry of African Descent'' which later became the ``55th Colored Infantry.'' Corinth is also one of the few existing Civil War sites that boasts extraordinary earthworks and fortifications--many of which remain in pristine condition. A National Park Service studying authority stated that, ``today the surviving [Corinth] earthworks are one of the largest and best preserved groups of field fortifications, dating to 1862 in the United States.'' Unfortunately, many of these historic resources, undisturbed for over 130 years, are now threatened. For example, a 500- yard section of earthworks was specifically sold for development. These earthworks are important to our national heritage because they helped shape the face of war from the 1860's to today. In fact, trench warfare evolved from the battle for Corinth. These earthworks and fortifications are symbolic reminders of the epic struggle that ensued between friends and neighbors and the Civil War's lasting impact on modern warfare. Although, the Battle of Shiloh has been etched into American history as part of the Shiloh National Military Park, a number of important historic sites and resources relating to the pre-battle and the rest of the Corinth Campaign have not been adequately protected or interpreted. Establishing the Shiloh Nationally Military Park as the nation's second Military Park back in 1894 was a good start. Now it is time for the 106th Congress to complete the preservation effort. Congress needs to give a lasting presence to the Corinth Battlefield, a key component of the historic Shiloh-Corinth Corridor. Corinth remains a central transportation gateway. It serves as a junction intersecting Highways 72, running east and west, and Highway 45, which runs north and south. It is also a mecca for dedicated history buffs given the town's close proximity to Shiloh and other Civil War sites and its connection to the Corinth Campaign. I am sure that my colleagues will agree that the sixteen Corinth Civil War sites designated as National Historic Landmarks are far too important to be relegated solely to review in history books or by professional historians. Americans need to see it. The 106th Congress can and must highlight the importance of the Siege and Battle of Corinth for the millions of adults and children, both American and foreign, interested in learning about an essential facet of Americana. For over one hundred years, the United States Congress has advanced the notion that our national interest is best served by preserving America's historic treasures. Not only by ensuring the proper interpretation of important historic events, but also the places--the properties where pivotal military milestones occurred. As Ed Bearss proclaimed, ``the Battle of Corinth was the bloodiest battle in the State of Mississippi. Troops were brought from New Orleans, Mobile, Texas and Arkansas because Corinth was such an important place. With the fall of Corinth, Perryville, Kentucky, and Antietam, Maryland the Confederacy was lost.'' We owe it to our ancestors and to future generations to protect Corinth and the wealth of Civil War history that exudes from this small town. Mr. President, the measure offered today is vital to the successful interpretation and preservation of Corinth. It builds upon previous efforts and gives Corinth its proper status as one of America's most significant Civil War sites. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join with me in support of the Corinth Battlefield Preservation Act of 1999. A bipartisan measure which is widely supported by local, state, regional, national, and international preservation organizations. Along with the strong local support shown by the residents and local officials of Corinth and Alcorn County as well as assistance from several Civil War preservation groups, I would also like to take a moment to thank Rosemary Williams of Corinth, Woody Harrel, Superintendent of the Shiloh Military Park, and Anne Thompson, Manager of the Interim Corinth Civil War Interpretive Center. They were instrumental in assisting with the preparation of this important historic preservation legislation. Mr. President, I also want to thank my colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Robb, and Senator Jeffords, for their formal support of this pro-parks, pro-history measure. I hope that the rest of my colleagues will join with us in taking this necessary step to protect our heritage so that our children and grandchildren can gain an understanding of the struggles of this great nation. Struggles that have help shaped our American democracy and transformed our diverse states and peoples into a cohesive and prosperous union better prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities of the next millennium. Corinth has a story to tell Americans today and in the future. Corinth merits inclusion in the Shiloh National Military Park. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, 137 years ago today, Major General Henry W. Halleck and his 120,000 man strong Union Army commenced the siege of Corinth, Mississippi. The ensuing six month battle between General Halleck's federal troops and General P. G. T. Beauregard's 53,000 Confederate defenders marked a turning point in the war between the states. It was a fierce engagement over a mere 16 square feet parcel. This small piece of real estate was of critical strategic importance to both the North and the South. It was in Corinth, Mississippi that the Memphis and Charleston and Mobile and Ohio Railroads crossed paths. This vital east-west and north-south railroad junction served as a passageway for troops and supplies moving from Illinois to Alabama and from Tennessee to points further east such as South Carolina and Virginia. Ed Bearss, Chief Historian Emeritus of the National Park Service, stated that ``during the Spring of 1862, Corinth was the most important city in the Confederacy and almost the length of the War . . . because of the railroads.'' In fact, because of its status as a vital rail hub, the town was occupied by either Confederate or Union forces from 1861 to 1865. It also served as a springboard for the careers of over 200 leading Confederate and Federal generals who were stationed in Corinth at one time or another. A figure matched by few other locations. Corinth is a city that exemplifies the trials and tribulations experienced by soldiers and civilians throughout the Civil War. A town whose railways lied at the center of a grand military chess match. An area, like many others north and south of the Mason-Dixon line, racked by the ravages of war. Even with its new status as a National Historic Landmark, Corinth is still considered a ``Civil War Landmark At Risk.'' The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, chartered by Congress to assess threats to America's premier historic sites, identified Corinth as a priority one battlefield in critical need of coordinated nationwide action by the year 2000. Local, state, and national preservation groups agree. And, so do I. Mr. President, today, I am proud and honored to introduce the Corinth Battlefield Preservation Act of 1999. This much needed legislation would provide further protection for one of America's most important Civil War sites by establishing Corinth as a unit of the Shiloh National Military Park. The 106th Congress needs to add the Corinth Battlefield and its surrounding sites to the National Park System given the area's pivotal role in American history. It is also appropriate for Congress to establish Corinth as a unit of the Shiloh National Military Park as these two sites were indelibly linked during the Civil War. The 1862 battle of Shiloh was actually the first strike in the Union force's overall Corinth Campaign. It was in April 1862, that federal and southern forces competing for control over Corinth first struggled in the Battle of Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing. The battle for Corinth also had international implications. As a result of the Union's victory, the British government chose not to officially recognize the Confederacy. The conflict in and around Corinth eventually included the Battles of Iuka, Tupelo, and Brices' Crossroads, as well as engagements in Booneville, Rienzi, Ripley, and numerous skirmishes in southwest Tennessee and northeast Alabama. In 1862, Union General Halleck said ``Richmond and Corinth . . . are the greatest strategic points of the war, and our success at these points should be insured at all hazards.'' Halleck's subordinate, General Ulysses S. Grant, regarded Corinth as ``the great strategic position in the west between the Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers and between Nashville and Vicksburg.'' In arguing for the defense of Corinth, Confederate General Beauregard stated to General Samual Cooper, Adjutant and Inspector General of the Confederate States Army that, ``if defeated here [in Corinth,] we lose the Mississippi Valley and probably our cause, whereas we could even afford to lose for a while Charleston and Savannah for the purpose of defeating Buell's army, which would not only insure us the valley of the Mississippi, but our independence.'' Corinth's strategic importance to both armies led to some of the bloodiest battles in the Western Theater. Tens of thousands of soldiers were killed or wounded in this bitter offensive. It was also here that thousands of war refugees, mostly African- Americans from Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama, sought shelter with the Union Army in Corinth. After President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, the federal army created a model ``Contraband Camp.'' By the Spring of 1863, the camp housed around 4,000 freedmen. Almost half of these freedmen joined the ``First Alabama Infantry of African Descent'' which later became the ``55th Colored Infantry.'' Corinth is also one of the few existing Civil War sites that boasts extraordinary earthworks and fortifications--many of which remain in pristine condition. A National Park Service studying authority stated that, ``today the surviving [Corinth] earthworks are one of the largest and best preserved groups of field fortifications, dating to 1862 in the United States.'' Unfortunately, many of these historic resources, undisturbed for over 130 years, are now threatened. For example, a 500- yard section of earthworks was specifically sold for development. These earthworks are important to our national heritage because they helped shape the face of war from the 1860's to today. In fact, trench warfare evolved from the battle for Corinth. These earthworks and fortifications are symbolic reminders of the epic struggle that ensued between friends and neighbors and the Civil War's lasting impact on modern warfare. Although, the Battle of Shiloh has been etched into American history as part of the Shiloh National Military Park, a number of important historic sites and resources relating to the pre-battle and the rest of the Corinth Campaign have not been adequately protected or interpreted. Establishing the Shiloh Nationally Military Park as the nation's second Military Park back in 1894 was a good start. Now it is time for the 106th Congress to complete the preservation effort. Congress needs to give a lasting presence to the Corinth Battlefield, a key component of the historic Shiloh-Corinth Corridor. Corinth remains a central transportation gateway. It serves as a junction intersecting Highways 72, running east and west, and Highway 45, which runs north and south. It is also a mecca for dedicated history buffs given the town's close proximity to Shiloh and other Civil War sites and its connection to the Corinth Campaign. I am sure that my colleagues will agree that the sixteen Corinth Civil War sites designated as National Historic Landmarks are far too important to be relegated solely to review in history books or by professional historians. Americans need to see it. The 106th Congress can and must highlight the importance of the Siege and Battle of Corinth for the millions of adults and children, both American and foreign, interested in learning about an essential facet of Americana. For over one hundred years, the United States Congress has advanced the notion that our national interest is best served by preserving America's historic treasures. Not only by ensuring the proper interpretation of important historic events, but also the places--the properties where pivotal military milestones occurred. As Ed Bearss proclaimed, ``the Battle of Corinth was the bloodiest battle in the State of Mississippi. Troops were brought from New Orleans, Mobile, Texas and Arkansas because Corinth was such an important place. With the fall of Corinth, Perryville, Kentucky, and Antietam, Maryland the Confederacy was lost.'' We owe it to our ancestors and to future generations to protect Corinth and the wealth of Civil War history that exudes from this small town. Mr. President, the measure offered today is vital to the successful interpretation and preservation of Corinth. It builds upon previous efforts and gives Corinth its proper status as one of America's most significant Civil War sites. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join with me in support of the Corinth Battlefield Preservation Act of 1999. A bipartisan measure which is widely supported by local, state, regional, national, and international preservation organizations. Along with the strong local support shown by the residents and local officials of Corinth and Alcorn County as well as assistance from several Civil War preservation groups, I would also like to take a moment to thank Rosemary Williams of Corinth, Woody Harrel, Superintendent of the Shiloh Military Park, and Anne Thompson, Manager of the Interim Corinth Civil War Interpretive Center. They were instrumental in assisting with the preparation of this important historic preservation legislation. Mr. President, I also want to thank my colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Robb, and Senator Jeffords, for their formal support of this pro-parks, pro-history measure. I hope that the rest of my colleagues will join with us in taking this necessary step to protect our heritage so that our children and grandchildren can gain an understanding of the struggles of this great nation. Struggles that have help shaped our American democracy and transformed our diverse states and peoples into a cohesive and prosperous union better prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities of the next millennium. Corinth has a story to tell Americans today and in the future. Corinth merits inclusion in the Shiloh National Military Park. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Engineering Establishment Act. The bill would create a concentrated focus at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on biomedical imaging and bioengineering. Imaging has been on the forefront of many of our advances in early diagnosis and treatment of disease. Innovative technologies have greatly reduced the need for invasive surgery and provided a remarkable tool for early detection of disease. Breakthroughs in imaging research have direct application to advances in molecular biology and molecular genetics, accelerating the development of new gene therapies and genetic screening. Despite the revolutionary influence of imaging on both research and treatment, the NIH traditionally has not concentrated basic research efforts on the imaging sciences. The bill I am introducing today ensures that research is not only focused in this important field, but that its applications are disseminated across disease fields. The bill also encourages information sharing among federal agencies. Many agencies, such as NASA, do basic imaging research. We should be committed to ensuring that all advances that have applications in our fight against disease are shared with our medical community. I am proud of the commitment that this Congress has made to the National Institutes of Health. We have demonstrated our determination to provide increased federal resources in the fight against disease. I believe that the establishment of a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Engineering will compliment those efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Engineering Establishment Act. The bill would create a concentrated focus at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on biomedical imaging and bioengineering. Imaging has been on the forefront of many of our advances in early diagnosis and treatment of disease. Innovative technologies have greatly reduced the need for invasive surgery and provided a remarkable tool for early detection of disease. Breakthroughs in imaging research have direct application to advances in molecular biology and molecular genetics, accelerating the development of new gene therapies and genetic screening. Despite the revolutionary influence of imaging on both research and treatment, the NIH traditionally has not concentrated basic research efforts on the imaging sciences. The bill I am introducing today ensures that research is not only focused in this important field, but that its applications are disseminated across disease fields. The bill also encourages information sharing among federal agencies. Many agencies, such as NASA, do basic imaging research. We should be committed to ensuring that all advances that have applications in our fight against disease are shared with our medical community. I am proud of the commitment that this Congress has made to the National Institutes of Health. We have demonstrated our determination to provide increased federal resources in the fight against disease. I believe that the establishment of a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Engineering will compliment those efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.