Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Did you want to ask a question? I can yield the floor so he can have some time.

Mr. LOTT. Yes, and after that, it will be my intention to yield the floor so Senator Daschle can make some comments and then after that, I will move the Senate stand in recess until 3 o'clock. I would like for Senator Daschle to have some time first.

Mr. LOTT. I yield to Senator McConnell.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, again I want to emphasize that on this campaign finance issue, the idea of adding more laws on the books on top of the laws that are already there that are already impossible to comply with in many respects, and certainly not without lawyers and accountants and advisers to make sure that you are complying with the already convoluted, difficult campaign law requirements, we had three cloture votes recently on the campaign finance bill and we had two other cloture votes on the paycheck equity. We have had five votes. Cloture was not achieved, and cloture is very important. Just like what are we trying to do on ISTEA? Get cloture. What am I going to have to do on fast track? I am going to have to try to get cloture to cut off an extended debate so we can get to the substance of the issue and bring it to a head. We have had five votes. It's not as if we have not voted on this. Consensus is not there. As far as picking up the paper and seeing the problems, yes, you can pick up the paper and see how the existing laws are being violated or maneuvered. Without saying who did it, which side, the fact of the matter is, what we need to do is to see if we can find ways to encourage people and get people to comply with existing laws before we start trying to add a whole bunch more on top of it that would limit free speech, that would limit people's abilities to have a fair shot at getting elected. That is what is at stake here. That is what I would like to be able to do, is maintain the ability to get my message across. In my State, if I cannot raise the money to get my message across, there are those who are going to try to get it across for me, some of those same newspapers you are talking about. Yes, if I had to depend on them, I wouldn't be here. So what you are talking about is trying to find a way where a guy like Trent Lott can't get an opportunity to get his message across to the constituents. I don't want to give that up. I think I have a right to be able to raise the funds to try to make my case to the constituents of my State. I don't think--we cannot limit advocacy. We can't do that. This is still America. But, again, to put it back in the calmer voice, we know it's going to come back up. Maybe someday we will quit trying to trump each other and try to see if there is some way maybe there might be some things that need to be done that we can agree on. I don't think we are there yet. I would be glad to yield to Senator McCain.

Mr. LOTT. I will yield further.

Mr. LOTT. We have already had votes on the McCain-Feingold issue. It may not have been the way that some Senators would have liked to have had it, but we have had votes on it. There is not a consensus on what to do on campaign finance reform at this time that could get the approval of the Senate, which requires 60 votes. I mean, that is what the Senator from North Dakota has indicated he is going to force on the fast track. He's probably going to have a filibuster and we'll have to get 60 votes on cloture to move on fast track. He may be successful in blocking fast track, which the President is very anxious to get and, in a meeting earlier this week, requested that I schedule it before we go out, and I want to do that. But he understands full well what the rules of the Senate are, and he's going to take full advantage of them, and that's his right. So, the same is applicable here. There is no consensus yet on how we can come together on campaign finance reform. This issue will come up again. I don't think it makes good sense for it to come up again this year. It will come up again in the future. I assume it will come up in a very different form in the future. Maybe not. Maybe in many different forms. I realize Senators are going to try to have it considered again at a later time and, as the majority leader, the floor leader of the Senate, it would be my intent to try to schedule it in some orderly way, where Senators will know when it is coming. I have already indicated, and Senator Daschle has indicated, that we would like to see some action take place on it by the first week in March, either during that week or earlier perhaps. But we would need to look at the calendar for the year and look at the President's Day recess and work around that. I don't see right now an agreement on how that would come up, because I just think the atmosphere, again, is not such that we can get an agreement worked out. Some people said, ``Oh, well, let's just have it freewheeling and let everybody offer whatever amendment they want to and see what happens.'' I'm not sure that's going to do us any good or the country any good, where we have a bunch of amendments where we try to pin each other's ears back and at the end of the day we have a filibuster and get nothing and we start off the year in a cranky mood and had a great roar and accomplish nothing. I am prepared to continue to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle on both sides of the issue and look to how that is going to be handled next year. I am prepared to say now that I realize it is going to come up and I will schedule it. But I have not been able to get an agreement as to how that would be done, and I don't think we are going to get that done at this time.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, under the provisions of rule XXII, the second cloture vote will occur immediately, unless changed by unanimous consent. We had the first cloture vote, which was not agreed to. Then we had the vote on the continuing resolution. I am glad we got that done now. My intent had been to have the second cloture vote later on in the day to give Members time to assess where we were on the ISTEA, and see if they would like to have an ISTEA bill and see if there is a way to sort of get things that are wrapped around the axle moved in such a way that we could go forward with this very important transportation infrastructure bill. But I understand our Democratic colleagues will not grant consent for the cloture vote to occur at 3 o'clock today. They want the cloture vote right now. I don't think that is wise. I think we need 3 hours here to sort of assess where we are, have some discussions, and then have a vote. So, with that in mind, I will shortly move to recess the Senate, then, until 3 o'clock today. Therefore, Senators can expect the next vote to occur at 3 p.m., on the second cloture motion with regard to the ISTEA highway infrastructure extension bill, and hopefully we will have some greater success there. If we don't get cloture--- and I had hoped we would on the second cloture vote--we have a cloture motion filed and we will have another cloture vote on Friday. I know some Senators have things they need to do. I know there will be some Senators absent and therefore it would be even more difficult to get the cloture vote to pass on Friday. If we don't get cloture then, as majority leader I have to make a call, after consultation with Members on both sides of this very important ISTEA transportation bill, as to whether we just pull it down and then next week try to move to other issues. We may have to have debate and votes on the Federal Reserve nominees. We have two Federal Reserve nominees that there is a hold on. It would be my intent to call those up because I don't think we ought to delay Federal Reserve nominees for any of our maneuverings around here. That could possibly be done on Monday. We also have a judge on the calendar that we have cleared, except a vote is going to be required. So we probably would have that vote on Monday at 5 o'clock. And again, I am not locking all these in. I am just trying to advise Members where we are. Then we could very well move to a variety of bills that are pending-- they are very serious--that we would like to get done before we adjourn for the end of the year. That would include, of course, Amtrak reform, which we need very badly. A lot of good work has been done on it. We have, of course, a threatened Amtrak strike that we may have to act on. We have the juvenile justice bill. We have the adoption and foster care bill. I thought we had bipartisan agreement on that, but there seem to be some problems with it. But we will begin to look at bringing up other bills. Also, then, next week we hope to begin the fast-track legislation, with the intent of completing action one way or the other on fast track early the first week in November. So that is kind of where it is. I think my inclination now is, if we don't get cloture this afternoon and we don't get cloture tomorrow, then we would have to just say, well, campaign finance reform took down the very important ISTEA infrastructure bill. That is kind of where we are, and I am prepared now to move that the Senate stand in recess until 3 p.m. today.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would have no objection to that. I would like to make sure that the manager of the bill has no objection at this time.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe there is still some more debate on the ISTEA legislation or other actions that may be considered tonight. So we will not do the closing at this time. But just so Senators will know what the present situation is and what they can expect later on tonight, of course, we do not expect any further recorded votes tonight. It is our anticipation that at 9:45 in the morning, there will be a vote on the cloture motion relating to the ISTEA highway construction bill. I am still trying to find a way to clear this bill of the obstructions that have been placed in its path so that we will have safe highways and safe roads and get this major legislation through the Senate. We have had two cloture votes. The next cloture vote will be tomorrow at 9:45 a.m. We made a serious effort today by all concerned on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the issue with relation to the campaign finance reform matter to find a way to move forward, and I believe that Senator Daschle and I had basically reached an agreement, but then other Senators indicated that they wanted something more and we couldn't complete that agreement. I think that is really unfortunate. I thought what we had come up with was very fair, that we would take up campaign finance reform by the first week of March and that amendments would be in order. But we will continue to work on it, hopefully, because I do think this is very important legislation. I will have to make a decision as majority leader after tomorrow's cloture vote as to what to do at that point. If we get cloture, obviously, we will go right on with the amendments with regard to ISTEA, the highway transportation bill, and I believe we can get it completed next week even though we have a lot of very important amendments pending. If we don't get cloture, I have to make a call as to whether to spend another half of a week trying to cut off basically the filibuster that has gone on with regard to this legislation and move on to other matters. I think that would be unfortunate. I think this is important legislation that needs to be passed. On Monday, if we have not been able to clear from hold the Federal Reserve nominees, it would be my intention to move to debate those and get a vote on them. And we also are going to have to act early next week, in some form, with regard to the threatened Amtrak strike. Beyond that, we will consult with Members on both sides of the aisle and let them know what will be the legislative schedule next week. If we cannot get something worked out on ISTEA, we will move on to other issues. And, of course, I would like to continue to work on the Executive Calendar, but that takes cooperation on both sides of the aisle. And if we cannot get cooperation on committee meetings and on how we resolve campaign finance reform, I guess we will not get cooperation on nominations either. But we will keep moving forward and see if we can come to some reasonable agreement so we can get this very important legislation completed. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, as amended; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 196, S. 1266.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 138, submitted earlier today by Senator Warner and Senator Ford.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 137, which is Kevin Thurm, to be Deputy Secretary of HHS; No. 286, Edward Shumaker, to be Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago; No. 304, Ellen Seidman, to be Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision; and No. 277, Peter Scher, to be Ambassador as Special Trade Negotiator. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, those treaties were the Agreement with Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders; the International Telecommunications Union Constitution and Convention; the U.S.-Mexico Treaty on Maritime Boundaries; the Migratory Bird Protocol with Canada; and the Migratory Bird Protocol with Mexico.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for a division vote on the resolutions of ratification.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider the following treaties on today's Executive Calendar: Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having passed through their various parliamentary stages, up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; that all committee provisos, reservations, understandings, and declarations be considered agreed to; that any statements be printed in the Congressional Record as if read; and that the Senate take one vote on the resolutions of ratification to be considered as separate votes; further, that when the resolutions of ratification are voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be notified of the Senate's action; and that following the disposition of the treaties, the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I observe a quorum is not present.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Lott pertaining to the introduction of S. 1310 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 23, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 633, a bill to amend the Petroglyph National Monument Establishment Act of 1990 to adjust the boundary of the monument; and S. 1132, a bill to modify the boundaries of the Bandelier National Monument to include the lands within the headwaters of the Upper Alamo Watershed which drain into the monument and which are not currently within the jurisdiction of a Federal land management agency, to authorize purchase or donation of those lands, and for other purposes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet at 2:30 p.m. During the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 23, 1997, to conduct a hearing of the following nominees: Kevin E. Marchman, of Colorado, to be Assistant Secretary of HUD for Public and Indian Housing; Saul N. Ramirez, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary of HUD for Community Planning and Development; Richard F. Keevey, of Virginia, to be the Chief Financial Officer of HUD; Eva M. Plaza, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of HUD for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity; Gail W. Laster, of New York, to be the General Counsel of HUD; Jo Ann Jay Howard, of Texas, to be the Federal Insurance Administrator at the Federal Emergency Management Agency; F. Amanda Debusk, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce; R. Roger Majak, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 23, 1997, at 4:15 p.m. in executive session, to consider pending nominations. The PRESIDING OFFICE. Without objection, it is so ordered. Committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senator Lieberman, as well as Senators McConnell, Reid, D'Amato, Boxer, Coverdell, Helms, Durbin, McCain, Brownback, Bennett, Campbell, Feingold, Mack, Shelby, Wyden, Hutchinson, Feinstein, Hollings, Mikulski, Nickles, Cleland, Inouye, Dorgan, and Bryan. This is very important legislation which addresses a serious threat, in my opinion, to American security: Iran's relentless efforts to acquire ballistic missile technology. There is no doubt that Iran is the major proliferation danger in the world today. Iran is committed to developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them. The consequences of Iran's ballistic missile development would be disastrous. Iran actively supports terrorist groups around the world. Earlier this year, a German court found Iran's intelligence services responsible for assassinations on German soil. There is a very real possibility that Iran was behind the murder of 19 Americans in the Khobar Towers bombing on June 25, 1996. News reports now indicate that Iran is developing two missiles with ranges of 800 or more than 1,200 miles. Such missiles would be able to reach American forces stationed in the Persian Gulf. They would be able to reach Israel. They would be able to reach our NATO ally, Turkey. They would be able to reach all the way into Central Europe, as a matter of fact. The terrorist regime in Iran has already demonstrated its willingness and ability to use bombings and hit squads to support its radical agenda in the Middle East and in Europe. We cannot sit back and allow Tehran to acquire ballistic missile capability that could hit even more targets with the push of a button, possibly even with nuclear warheads. This administration's track record on dealing with Iran is not encouraging. We are always anxious to work with the administration in these important foreign policy issues. In 1995, with great fanfare, the administration announced it was strongly opposed to the sale of Russian nuclear reactors to Iran and the issue would be handled in the commission headed by Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. In the intervening 2 years there has been no progress in halting that sale, or sales of this type. In 1995 the administration gave a green light to Iranian extremists who gained a foothold in Europe by arming the Bosnian Government. The residue of that green light still affects the situation in Bosnia today. So, there are problems, obviously, in this area. When the news reports in the Washington Times over the last month indicated that there were very serious concerns about Russian support for Iran's missile technology programs, many of us on Capitol Hill looked for action. Vice President Gore, we were told, would raise the issue with the Prime Minister when he was in Russia, but the response that he received apparently was to call the news report ``stupid'' and ``not worthy of comment.'' I think, after consultation with the administration, that this legislation is necessary because not enough has been done to address this Iranian missile development. I believe it is clear that existing United States law has been broken by Russian entities. Emissaries have gone to Moscow, information has been shared. Yet, no sanctions action has been taken by the administration. This legislation is necessary because it is time to act. Many have recently expressed concern about Congress imposing ``unilateral'' sanctions. My response is that Congress will step into a vacuum and take unilateral action when inadequate action is being taken in other areas. The legislation is quite simple. It requires the President to report in 30 days, and every 180 days thereafter, on entities that have transferred or attempted to transfer goods, technology, technical assistance or facilities that contribute to Iran's efforts to acquire, develop or produce ballistic missiles. The legislation requires three sanctions on any such entities: No export of American arms, no export of restricted dual-use items, and no American Government assistance. So it is a targeted sanction, aimed at the entities involved in these actions. Congress has established with successive administrations, special criteria in existing law for each of these three things. Our legislation simply says if you help Iran acquire ballistic missile capability, you will not get arms, controlled exports, or taxpayer- financed aid. Similar bipartisan legislation is being introduced in the House today. I refer back to my opening remarks. There are already, I believe some 26 Senators who are cosponsoring on both sides of the aisle, from all regions of the country and all philosophical spectrums. I hope the Senate will take action on this legislation before the end of the session. Certainly, it will provide, hopefully, some additional impetus for the administration to aggressively address this issue. A number of changes have been made in the legislation to meet policy and legal concerns of the administration, and I hope the administration will see the merits of imposing these serious and rapid sanctions on entities which aid Iran's efforts to threaten American forces and American allies. We cannot stand mute. We cannot ignore this very serious matter. We will continue to work with the administration and support any aggressive efforts that they care to use. But after serious consideration, and after consultation particularly with Senator Lieberman, I thought it was important that we go ahead and introduce this legislation today, and explain why we are doing it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senator Lieberman, as well as Senators McConnell, Reid, D'Amato, Boxer, Coverdell, Helms, Durbin, McCain, Brownback, Bennett, Campbell, Feingold, Mack, Shelby, Wyden, Hutchinson, Feinstein, Hollings, Mikulski, Nickles, Cleland, Inouye, Dorgan, and Bryan. This is very important legislation which addresses a serious threat, in my opinion, to American security: Iran's relentless efforts to acquire ballistic missile technology. There is no doubt that Iran is the major proliferation danger in the world today. Iran is committed to developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them. The consequences of Iran's ballistic missile development would be disastrous. Iran actively supports terrorist groups around the world. Earlier this year, a German court found Iran's intelligence services responsible for assassinations on German soil. There is a very real possibility that Iran was behind the murder of 19 Americans in the Khobar Towers bombing on June 25, 1996. News reports now indicate that Iran is developing two missiles with ranges of 800 or more than 1,200 miles. Such missiles would be able to reach American forces stationed in the Persian Gulf. They would be able to reach Israel. They would be able to reach our NATO ally, Turkey. They would be able to reach all the way into Central Europe, as a matter of fact. The terrorist regime in Iran has already demonstrated its willingness and ability to use bombings and hit squads to support its radical agenda in the Middle East and in Europe. We cannot sit back and allow Tehran to acquire ballistic missile capability that could hit even more targets with the push of a button, possibly even with nuclear warheads. This administration's track record on dealing with Iran is not encouraging. We are always anxious to work with the administration in these important foreign policy issues. In 1995, with great fanfare, the administration announced it was strongly opposed to the sale of Russian nuclear reactors to Iran and the issue would be handled in the commission headed by Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. In the intervening 2 years there has been no progress in halting that sale, or sales of this type. In 1995 the administration gave a green light to Iranian extremists who gained a foothold in Europe by arming the Bosnian Government. The residue of that green light still affects the situation in Bosnia today. So, there are problems, obviously, in this area. When the news reports in the Washington Times over the last month indicated that there were very serious concerns about Russian support for Iran's missile technology programs, many of us on Capitol Hill looked for action. Vice President Gore, we were told, would raise the issue with the Prime Minister when he was in Russia, but the response that he received apparently was to call the news report ``stupid'' and ``not worthy of comment.'' I think, after consultation with the administration, that this legislation is necessary because not enough has been done to address this Iranian missile development. I believe it is clear that existing United States law has been broken by Russian entities. Emissaries have gone to Moscow, information has been shared. Yet, no sanctions action has been taken by the administration. This legislation is necessary because it is time to act. Many have recently expressed concern about Congress imposing ``unilateral'' sanctions. My response is that Congress will step into a vacuum and take unilateral action when inadequate action is being taken in other areas. The legislation is quite simple. It requires the President to report in 30 days, and every 180 days thereafter, on entities that have transferred or attempted to transfer goods, technology, technical assistance or facilities that contribute to Iran's efforts to acquire, develop or produce ballistic missiles. The legislation requires three sanctions on any such entities: No export of American arms, no export of restricted dual-use items, and no American Government assistance. So it is a targeted sanction, aimed at the entities involved in these actions. Congress has established with successive administrations, special criteria in existing law for each of these three things. Our legislation simply says if you help Iran acquire ballistic missile capability, you will not get arms, controlled exports, or taxpayer- financed aid. Similar bipartisan legislation is being introduced in the House today. I refer back to my opening remarks. There are already, I believe some 26 Senators who are cosponsoring on both sides of the aisle, from all regions of the country and all philosophical spectrums. I hope the Senate will take action on this legislation before the end of the session. Certainly, it will provide, hopefully, some additional impetus for the administration to aggressively address this issue. A number of changes have been made in the legislation to meet policy and legal concerns of the administration, and I hope the administration will see the merits of imposing these serious and rapid sanctions on entities which aid Iran's efforts to threaten American forces and American allies. We cannot stand mute. We cannot ignore this very serious matter. We will continue to work with the administration and support any aggressive efforts that they care to use. But after serious consideration, and after consultation particularly with Senator Lieberman, I thought it was important that we go ahead and introduce this legislation today, and explain why we are doing it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.