Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the next first-degree amendments in order and limited to relevant second-degree amendments: Senator Kerrey of Nebraska regarding livestock; Senator Johnson regarding meat labeling; Senator Dodd regarding sanctions; Senator Graham regarding disaster assistance; and Senator Torricelli regarding sanctions. I further ask unanimous consent that if debate is concluded and a rollcall vote is requested that the amendment or amendments be laid aside to recur in the order in which they were debated, and the votes occur beginning at 8:45 with 2 minutes of debate equally divided before each vote begins.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the manager will withhold for a minute, this will be the last vote of the night. We hope to take up the Grassley amendment the first thing in the morning, with the first vote hopefully occurring at 10:30, although that has not been worked out. This will be the last vote of the night. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Kerrey amendment.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to ask for the yeas and nays on the Kerrey amendment.

Mr. LOTT. On the Torricelli amendment? I do not believe they have.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the managers for the work they have been doing, the progress they have made and the two votes we just had. We have been working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to identify what amendments we can do tonight. Senator Daschle has been working with me on this. So I announce the proposed lineup for the next few amendments to be considered tonight. I think it is important we keep working so we can complete this very important legislation for the Agriculture Department and the farmers of America. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. LOTT. That is correct, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on the Torricelli amendment.

Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Torricelli amendment.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that then we proceed to the Kerrey amendment and that there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided on the Kerrey amendment.

Mr. LOTT. I think that is an excellent request. And I ask unanimous consent that that vote be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. I believe then we are ready to put the question.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to commend the continuing efforts of America's computer industry to find a technical solution to the encryption issue. On Monday, July 13, a consortium of thirteen high- tech companies announced an alternative to the Administration's proposed key escrow/third party access system. As you will recall, many computer and security exports have stated that key escrow would be an invasion of privacy, technically unworkable, and cost prohibitive. Unlike the key recovery system advocated by the Administration, industry's ``private doorbells'' approach would not require sensitive encryption keys to be escrowed with third parties in order for law enforcement to gain access to computer messages. Instead, the FBI and other federal, state, and local agencies would be able to combat crime by being provided with court approved, real-time access to communiques at the point where they are sent or at the point where the message is received. Clearly, high-tech executives have not been sitting on the sidelines as the encryption debate continues. As this announcement indicates, the computer industry is working hard to find a balanced solution that ensures the needs of our law enforcement and national security communities while maintaining privacy protections for all U.S. citizens. We owe it to them, and to all Americans, to find a balanced legislative solution to encryption.

Mr. LOTT. Americans want and need strong encryption to protect their most sensitive data and communications from unauthorized access. Yet the Administration continues to pursue an encryption policy that limits exports, requires key recovery backdoors for law enforcement, and ultimately stifles American innovation. Instead of keeping technology out of the hands of criminals, continuing export controls will only ensure that U.S. citizens have less protection than other computer users throughout the globe. The financial institutions announcement confirms what many in Congress have been saying for some time: users of electronic commerce will be best served by providing relief from current export control regulations. Allowing advanced encryption to be exported ensures that sensitive data is protected while helping American companies compete globally. Individual consumers, as well as multinational financial institutions, will not buy and will not use encryption systems when government mandated recovery keys for these products are provided to third parties. This system, as many experts have reported, creates a host of security risks, making our online communications vulnerable to attack by thieves, hackers and other criminals.

Mr. LOTT. I agree with my colleagues. While I strongly support the passage of legislation on both encryption and on digital signatures, I am convinced that the best approach during this session is to deal with these matters in separate bills. Let me say again, that in order to pass legislation on both of these issues during this Congress, we must recognize that there are significant differences between these important and complex policy issues. Digital signature and certificate authority have appeared in various proposals in association with encryption. However, these matters need to be considered separately because they raise different questions and complications. A digital signature is a technical method for authenticating the identity of a sender or author. As its name implies, it is a digital version of a person's written signature. Encryption is a means to ensure confidentiality. It is a set of algorithms used to scramble and unscramble text in order to keep unauthorized person's from reading your computer data and messages. It is a technology that protects medical, business, and individual files from invasion. Again, encryption for confidentiality, and digital signatures for authentication and related certificate authorities, are not the same issue. Dealing with encryption and digital signatures in one piece of legislation could lead to the demise of such a weighted bill. Consequently, I am prepared and committed to moving separate bills dealing with these issues during this session. I urge my colleagues to support this dual track approach as my colleagues have recommended. I share the belief that this is the best chance for legislation to be passed in both of these areas during the 105th Congress. Congress needs to stop debating these issues and enact balanced legislation that will ensure the privacy rights of individuals while protecting America's public safety, economic, and national security interests.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am always reluctant to add another national holiday to our calendar, but were we to do so, then July 15 would be a good bet. For today is Max Fisher's birthday. In fact, it is his 90th birthday. But longevity, important as it is, is the least of his accomplishments. Many of our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, know Max very well. He has long been one of the most prominent and influential leaders in the American Jewish community. He has advised every Republican President since Richard Nixon. He has advised every Israeli Prime Minister since Golda Meir. He was a critical force behind the airlift that helped save Israel in the darkest days of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The great work of his life has been building bridges between Israel and the United States. But that is only one of many reasons to honor him. Max is one of our Nation's greatest philanthropists. He played a vital role in his home city of Detroit after the tragic riots of 1967 by promoting reconciliation and economic opportunity. He continues in that effort today. No one will ever know how many people have benefited from his quiet generosity. Max, of course, would prefer the term social responsibility. Whatever the words, the meaning is the same, and so is the inspiration. As the Book of Proverbs teaches, ``He who is gracious to the poor lends to the Lord.'' Ten years ago, when Max celebrated his eightieth birthday, accolades came in from around the world. President Reagan called him ``a legend.'' Today, ten years later, the legend continues to build. He still works quietly, behind the scenes. It is no coincidence that his biography is entitled, ``The Quiet Diplomat.'' That book documents what all of his friends and admirers know so well: His dedication to the cause of peace, his energy in the cause of justice, his wisdom and effectiveness in working for a better world. At some point, with a man like Max, we run out of accolades. He has heard them all--and probably been impressed by none of them. His eye is always on the future: What remains to be done, what is still to be built, what has not yet been set right. In that spirit, on behalf of the Senate of the United States, I want to wish him yet another Happy Birthday, in the full realization that these ninety years have been as much a blessing to us and to the Nation as they have been to him and to his family. To Max from America: Mazel tov, and God bless.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning, under a previous order, the Senate will debate the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Daschle amendment, with a vote occurring on the motion at 10 a.m. Following that vote, the Senate will continue consideration of the very important agriculture appropriations bill, with the hope of finishing the bill as soon as possible this evening, or as early as possible this week. And I am very proud that my senior colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, will be doing his usual very good job in handling this important bill. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate, with the first vote at 10 a.m. For the remainder of the week, it is hoped the Senate will complete several important appropriations bills--at least agriculture, HUD-VA, and legislative. That would be a very positive movement and would give us an opportunity to address other important issues. Members are reminded that we have the second in the Leader Lecture series this evening. I will be honored to introduce our former majority leader, Senator Baker. That will be held tonight at 6 p.m. in the old Senate Chamber. Also, on Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock, there will be a Joint Meeting of Congress in the House Chamber to receive an address from the President of Romania. I urge my colleagues to come to our lecture series session this afternoon with Senator Baker. I know it will be interesting and, as usual, filled with good wit and good humor, and will be very informative about his views of the Senate and where we have been and where we are going. The next speaker in the leader series is scheduled to be Senator Byrd of West Virginia. I believe it is in September.

Mr. LOTT. I have been indicating all year that the Senate was going to take this issue up, and beginning June 18 I sent suggested unanimous consent agreements to Senator Daschle. He and I talked yesterday. We are working together on that issue. We fully expect that probably early next week we will turn to this issue. We have not worked out the exact time or the exact procedure. But we had a good discussion yesterday, and we will continue to have that discussion. I would like for us to do it where we have the Patients' Bill of Rights as the issue that is pending, with Senator Kennedy's bill as one of those, obviously, that would be offered, and the task force bill that has been put together by Senator Nickles, and others, and not tie up appropriations bills. We have the people's work to do. The appropriations bills keep the Government running. They fund our farm programs, they fund our veterans programs, they fund our housing programs, they fund our parks and Interior, Commerce, State, and Justice. The Senator knows the list. So we need to go ahead with those appropriations bills, and then we will turn to the Patients' Bill of Rights in a reasonable period of time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed with my leader time so that I can make a statement with regard to the committee hearings on the investigation with regard to the satellite exports to the People's Republic of China.

Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am going to provide an update on the investigations that have been proceeding by four of our committees into this U.S. policy toward satellite exports. We have not reached any final determinations. I want to emphasize that. The good counsel is that we have made some progress. We are learning some things, but there is a good deal more work that needs to be done. I believe the Intelligence Committee has an open hearing scheduled tomorrow. Senator Cochran's subcommittee has hearings scheduled I believe next week. So we will continue this. We are going to be thorough and we are going to be cautious. We should not jump to conclusions. In this connection, I recently came across the following statement from 1989 concerning the Bush administration's decision to allow export licenses for three United States satellites: ``Allowing these launches is not in the best interests of our country or of our relationship with China. It casts a long shadow that distorts beyond recognition what the United States ought to represent to our own people and to the people fighting for democracy in China.'' This statement was made by then- Senator Al Gore. He obviously has changed his position. What we have to examine is whether the policy of allowing the export of U.S. satellites as implemented by the Clinton-Gore administration adequately protects American national interests. Let me start with the bottom line. Senate investigations have only begun. Lack of cooperation from the Administration has hampered our efforts. Thirteen hearings with 32 witnesses have been held by four committees. I have met with the committee chairmen and other members of our informal task force on China. At this point, five major interim judgments can be made based on what we already know. First, the Clinton administration's export controls for satellites are wholly inadequate. They have not protected sensitive U.S. technology. National security concerns are regularly downplayed and even ignored. Second, in violation of stated United States policy, sensitive technology related to satellite exports has been transferred to China. We know what the case is. Third, China has received military benefit from United States satellite exports. Every day, there continues to be additional information that comes out in this area. In fact, in today's Washington Times, there is a news article that says ``U.S. Technology Builds `Bridge' for China Missile.'' Fourth, the administration has ignored overwhelming information regarding Chinese proliferation, and has embarked on a de facto policy designed to protect China and U.S. satellite companies from sanctions under U.S. proliferation law. We have a statement from White House official to that effect. Finally, new information has come to light about China's efforts to influence the American political process. This new information should remove all resistance to naming an independent counsel to investigate the evidence and the allegations. The administration has failed to fully cooperate with the Senate investigation, even though they have indicated that they would, and there is still time for that. But on May 22, 1998, along committee chairmen of jurisdiction, I sent letters requesting administration documents from the White House, the Departments of State, Commerce, Defense, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. On June 1, 1998, a letter was sent to the Department of Justice requesting documents. On June 2, 1998, a letter was sent requesting documents from the Customs Service. On June 12, 1998, Senators Shelby and Kerrey sent letters requesting information from eight Governmental agencies and the White House as part of the Select Committee on Intelligence investigation. The letters I joined in sending requested documents in three areas: First, all issues associated with the export of satellites to China, including waivers of U.S. law governing such exports and the decision to transfer control of satellite exports from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce; second, issues associated with China's proposed membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime, MTCR; and third, information on Chinese proliferation activities which indicate possible violations of U.S. laws. A significant amount of documents have been provided concerning some areas of satellite exports--particularly from the White House and particularly on the presidential waivers allowing satellite exports. But virtually no information has been provided concerning the transfer of export controls from State to Commerce--from the White House or any other agency. And virtually no information has been provided on Chinese membership in the MTCR, or on Chinese proliferation activities in violation of U.S. law. A review of executive branch compliance with our document requests demonstrates how limited the cooperation really has been. Until Friday of last week, the Department of Commerce only provided an initial limited set of documents. More has been promised, but the response has again glacial and incomplete. The documents they have provided contain redactions that limit their utility, quite frankly. The Department of Justice has provided nothing to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and has insisted on reviewing virtually all documents provided by any other Government agencies--significantly slowing down the process in this area. The Department of State has provided also virtually nothing. Classified documents, according to a July 2, 1998, letter, would not be provided to the Congress. Instead, documents could be read only at the Department of State. Given that far more sensitive information is routinely provided for the use of the Senate in Senate spaces, this can only be seen as bureaucratic obstruction. The White House has not responded to the Intelligence Committee. Neither has ACDA, Customs, or State. Defense and Commerce have only provided limited information. The White House initially declassified some documents concerning waiver decisions in June, but has provided nothing since then. The Department of Defense has provided only a very limited number of documents. The Customs Service has provided nothing other than a June 23, 1998, letter stating that they would not meet our June 15, 1998, deadline, but we haven't gotten that information as of yet. After a review of the Clinton administration's compliance with our requests for information, it is hard to escape the conclusion that delay has become the standard operating procedure. Once again, it is going to make it difficult for us to get the information we need so we can make a clear determination about the damage that has been done with this technology transfer. After an initial show of good faith by the administration, we have not had a lot more cooperation since then. We will be forced to consider other measures to compel enforcement. I don't plan to move nominees of these non-cooperative agencies until our legitimate oversight requests are honored. We are actively examining the possibility of subpoena options. It is becoming increasingly difficult to continue with the very productive hearings that we have had without this cooperation. Now, I would like to address the five points I raised earlier in some greater detail. Again, these are preliminary conclusions and we are seeking additional information. First, the Clinton administration's export controls for satellites are simply inadequate. There has not been adequate protection of sensitive U.S. technology. National security concerns are regularly downplayed and even ignored. Hearings before several committees have detailed the shortcomings in the development and implementation of export controls of satellites. For example, a senior official of the Defense Trade and Security Administration testified before the Committee on Governmental Affairs on June 25, 1998, that ``over the past six years, the formal process to control dual-use items has failed in its stated mission--to safeguard the national security of the United States.'' Transferring the control of satellite exports from the State Department to the Commerce Department in 1996 really resulted in dramatic changes. According to the General Accounting Office testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 10, 1998, the transfer reduced the influence of the Defense Department. It eliminated Congressional notification. It exempted satellite exports from certain sanctions. Technical information is not as clearly controlled, leading to uncertainty on the part of aerospace companies and to more technology transfer than previously allowed. Testimony on July 8, 1998, before the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, has established that the Department of Defense monitors are not required to be present at satellite launches. This is directly contrary to previous administration claims. No statute, policy, or regulation requires U.S. Government monitors. At least three U.S. satellites have been launched in China with no U.S. monitors present. No one in the U.S. Government knows what transpired at these launches or if U.S. laws and policies on technology transfer were followed. No one in our Government is even attempting to examine what occurred at these unmonitored satellite launches. Looking at these unmonitored launches, I think, would be a critical element of the next phase of our investigation. Today's satellite export control system relies on the good will of the Commerce Department, a department which has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to ignore national security concerns on satellite exports. This is an area where we need to take a close look at how we are going to proceed in the future and what is going to be expected of the Commerce Department. For example, Commerce has unilaterally removed items subject to interagency license review without notice to other affected agencies. Commerce has also refused to send approved licenses to Defense so officials there can evaluate the final product. When it involves satellites and technology, clearly the Defense Department should be a part of this process. Second, sensitive technology related to satellite exports has been transferred to China. In at least two cases, U.S. companies analyzed Chinese launch failures and communicated with Chinese officials. In 1995, Hughes analyzed the ``APSTAR 2'' launch failure. Commerce now concedes that this analysis should have been subject to State and Defense Department reviews before a Commerce official gave it to the Chinese. Commerce only provided the report, concluded in 1995, 2 hours before a Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Proliferation hearing on July 8 of this year. The 1996 Loral launch failure is the subject of a Justice Department review for possible illegal transfer of technology. Compliance with the law is the province of the Justice Department. So we are looking into the impact on American national securities. It is very important that the Justice Department complete that work. I agree with three assessments by three elements of the State and Defense Departments that China derived significant benefits from their technical exchanges with U.S. companies after the Long March crash in 1996, exchanges which are likely to lead to improvements in the reliability of their ballistic missile, and especially their guidance systems. So we have to be concerned very much about this transfer. Third, China has received military benefit from U.S. satellite exports. There is a division within the executive branch agencies over how much China has benefited. But there seems to be agreement that certainly some benefit was derived. The New York Times has reported that U.S. satellites are being used by the Chinese military for its internal coded communications. Administration officials concede that China is using American-made and exported satellites for their military communications. This is a clear and uncontested military benefit for China. The New York Times also reports that an additional satellite export that could enhance the Chinese military's ability to eavesdrop on phone conversations is under review by the Clinton administration. The administration has ignored overwhelming information regarding Chinese proliferation and has embarked on what appears to be a de facto policy to protect China and U.S. satellite companies from sanctions under our U.S. proliferation law. For instance, on June 11, 1998, the Committee on Foreign Relations heard testimony from the former director of the Nonproliferation Center of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Clinton administration has used ``almost any measure'' to block intelligence judgments that China had transferred missiles to Pakistan--a clear violation of U.S. law that requires the imposition of sanctions. Intelligence analyses ``were summarily dismissed by the policy community.'' According to the testimony, the intelligence community is ``virtually certain that this transfer had taken place . . .'' I am convinced, after a personal investigation, that it did take place, and it was a very dangerous for Pakistan to be receiving these missiles. Why has that been the case, and why hasn't the administration been willing to take actions providing sanctions where clearly that information has been provided? Finally, new information has come to light about China's efforts to influence the American political process. This new information should remove any doubt about the need for an independent counsel in this area. It has already been reported that FBI Director Freeh has indicated his view that an independent counsel should be appointed. It is time to renew attention on the Attorney General. It is time for an outside, impartial investigation by an independent counsel into the serious and credible charges of direct Chinese Government financing or involvement in the 1996 elections. We have very good committees that are working together in a bipartisan way and looking into these very important questions. I urge them to continue to do so, and to do it in a calm and methodical way. It is essential that we get cooperation from the administration to provide the additional information that we requested, the additional evidence. And we will carry out our constitutional responsibilities. Nothing less should be expected of us. In view of the inquiries we had about how these are proceeding, what information we have been getting, what is outstanding, and also what is our plan, as far as future hearings, I thought it was important that I give some review of what has transpired. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mister President, I would like to recognize the professional dedication, vision and public service of Mrs. Cathy Abell who is leaving the Army Senate Legislative Liaison Office to serve as the Congressional Affairs Coordinator for the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. It is a privilege for me to recognize the many outstanding achievements she has provided for the Senate, the Army, and our great Nation. Cathy Abell worked for every Member of the Senate as the Secretary of the Army's legislative liaison to the Senate. She was instrumental in facilitating the exchange of information between our constituent services offices and the Department of the Army. Mrs. Abell is an expert at cutting through the red tape of the military bureaucracy and never lost sight of the fact that taking care of the individual was paramount. I never knew of an instance in which Mrs. Abell would back away from doing the right thing for the Army, the soldier or family member and the Senate offices she served. Mrs. Abell earned the reputation as someone on whom we could rely on to respond to our inquiries in a responsive, professional manner. She always provided informative, well researched responses to our constituents. Cathy Abell was the ``go to'' person in the Army's Senate Legislative Liaison Office. When a Senate office had a really complex case, the legislative assistants knew that they should direct the inquiry to her. Mrs. Abell would skillfully work through the complex military regulations and determine how best to maintain the integrity of the Army's processes while permitting the soldier or family member to receive the relief required by their situation. She is able to communicate effectively with both military officials and Congressional staff members and has developed superb working relationships with our staffs. Her professional abilities and the excellent working relationships earned her the respect and trust which served her, the Army and the Senate so well. Mrs. Abell recognized that many of our staff were not familiar with Army organizations, processes and procedures. To address this lack of familiarity, she organized and implemented a series of trips in which our staffs were able to experience first hand the conditions under which military personnel are recruited, processed and trained. As a result of her initiative, Senate staff members are able to more accurately explain Army procedures to constituents, in many cases eliminating the need for a formal inquiry. Initiative, caring service and professionalism are the terms used to describe Mrs. Abell. Mister President, Cathy Abell is a great credit to the Army and the Nation. As she now departs to share her experience and expertise with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize her service to the Senate and wish her well in her new assignment.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this afternoon there will be a period for morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin debate on a motion to proceed to the property rights bill. At 5:45, under a previous order, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the private property rights bill. Following that vote, the Senate will consider any legislative or executive items that may be cleared for action. For the remainder of this week, the Senate will attempt to complete action on the private property rights bill, finish several appropriations bills, including agriculture appropriations, the HUD/VA appropriations bill is a possibility, and hopefully the legislative appropriations bill. We could also begin consideration of the credit union bill, and we are also looking at when we will begin and how we will debate and consider the Patients' Bill of Rights. We have some Internet bills that we are trying to get cleared so that we can consider those under a short time agreement. Also, as a reminder, on Wednesday, July 15, at 10 a.m., there will be a joint meeting of Congress to receive the address from the President of Romania. So we have a good bit of work that we need to do this week, as usual. The focus will be on appropriations bills throughout most of the week, turning late in the week or early next week to the Patients' Bill of Rights or the credit union bill. I yield the floor, Mr. President. I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daschle for his cooperation on that.