Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this cloture vote will occur on Thursday, October 23, at a time to be determined later. However, I do ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on the pending highway legislation.

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, this cloture vote will occur on Thursday also, if necessary. It will be the intention of the majority leader to schedule the vote in the afternoon Thursday, if cloture is not invoked Thursday morning. I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I also ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. the Senate resume consideration of S. 1173, the ISTEA reauthorization bill.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 12 noon on Wednesday, October 22. I further ask that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate immediately proceed to a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the exception of Senator Baucus for 15 minutes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 137 submitted earlier today by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, United States versus Tara LaJuan Edwards and United States versus Robbin Tiffani Stoney are two criminal cases set for trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, charging the defendants, two former Senate employees, with financial misconduct during their former Senate employment. Three employees of the Secretary of the Senate not implicated in the alleged wrongdoing have been subpoenaed by the Government to testify at these trials. This resolution would authorize these Senate employees to testify, and would also authorize representation of these Senate witnesses by the legal counsel. The resolution also would authorize the Secretary to release Senate records and documents relevant to these cases. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Tomorrow, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 12:30, after coming in at noon. At 12:30, we will go back to the ISTEA legislation. It is hoped that the Senate will make some progress on this important legislation which authorizes the funding for transportation projects and safety programs so essential to the transportation infrastructure of this country. As a reminder to all Senators, a cloture motion was filed this afternoon on the ISTEA legislation. Therefore, all second-degree amendments must be filed prior to the vote on Thursday. In addition, a cloture vote will occur on Thursday, with the exact time to be announced later, with the mandatory quorum being waived. In addition, the Senate may turn to appropriations conference reports that become available at any time and, of course, Members can expect votes during the day tomorrow. I know Senator Chafee, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, would like very much to get on with the substance of this bill. I believe it is important legislation and that there is a growing desire to work together on this bipartisan issue, and I believe and hope that we will get cloture on Thursday. If not, then we would have another vote on Friday, so that we could get to the germane amendments and deal with this issue in a serious way. It is my intent to continue to work with the members of the committee--they have done good work on this legislation, it was reported out of the committee unanimously--and complete action on it next week so we will have this 6-year bill completed in the Senate. Then we can see what might happen at that point. Then it would be my intention, shortly after that, whenever that may be, late next week I hope, to go to fast track legislation. This is ambitious, but these are very important bills that I believe most Senators want us to act on. The President of the United States today personally asked me to try to move both of these bills, and I will continue to work with Senator Daschle and other Senators to try to find a way to move this process forward. We did have some good faith exhibited today. Our committees were allowed to meet. We did move some nominations that are required, needed for the administration in order for it to be able to do its work. I hope we can continue in that vein. So far we have not been able to get everybody to agree to a process whereby we can move on to important, substantive legislation like ISTEA and fast track and Amtrak and adoption and foster care legislation. But it is certainly my intention to do everything I can to get to these serious issues.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I would also note that the authority under which the FMC took these actions, section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, and the independence of the U.S. Government's international shipping oversight agency would be preserved under S. 414, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1997. Under this bill, the action would be carried out by the U.S. Transportation Board, an expanded and renamed Surface Transportation Board. To those who expressed concerns that this multimodal board would be unwilling or unable to be an effective regulator of the maritime industry, I tell them to look at the Surface Transportation Board's record of making tough decisions with regard to the mergers of the largest railroads in the United States. When provided with similar maritime expertise, this combined board will certainly have the ability and willingness to protect the interests of the United States in international maritime disputes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this firm action has had the desired effect. An agreement between the United States and Japan on the port issue has been reached. The FMC's order will not have to be carried out, but it was vital to ensuring that Japan's discriminatory port practices are ended. International trade only works when trading partners treat each other fairly. Diplomatic solutions only work when both sides live up to their commitments, and this only occurs when nations know there are genuine consequences to inaction. The FMC's active role in the port dispute ensured that United States ocean carriers will be treated fairly in Japan. I want to personally recognize Harold Creel, the Chairman of the FMC, and FMC Commissioners Ming Hsu, Del Won, and Joe Scroggins for their efforts to resolve the Japanese port dispute in a firm, yet fair, manner. Clearly, the FMC has both the responsibility and the authority to take the action. And, the Commissioners approached their decision in a thoughtful and measured way. I also want to thank the other members of the negotiation team, in particular, the Maritime Administration which provided much needed maritime expertise.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] for doing the right thing about Japan's ports. This action was not unexpected by the Japanese carriers, but I am sure many were surprised with the FMC's dedication to seeing this through. During the past few days, the Nation watched as a long running dispute between Japan and those countries whose ships call on Japan's ports appears to have been resolved. Japan's ports are widely known as the most inefficient and expensive in the developed world. Additionally, Japan's port system discriminates against non-Japanese ocean carriers.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to report to my colleagues on the activities in the House to establish a new export policy on encryption. This is an issue that is still at the top of my list of legislation I hope this Congress can resolve within the next 2 months. The House's actions last month turned a spotlight on how this issue should ultimately be resolved. Let me briefly review the issue. Encryption is a mathematical way to scramble and unscramble digital computer information during transmission and storage. The strength of encryption is a function of its size, as measured in computer bits. The more bits an encryption system has, the more difficult it is for someone else to illegally unscramble or hack into that information. Today's computer encryption systems commonly used by businesses range from 40 bits in key length to 128 bits. A good hacker, let's say a criminal or a business competitor, can readily break into a computer system safeguarded by a lower-technology 40-bit encryption system. On the other hand, the 128-bit encryption systems are much more complex and pose a significant challenge to any would-be hacker. Obviously, all of us would prefer to have the 128-bit systems. And equally as important, we would like to buy such systems from American companies. Firms we can routinely and safely do business with. Foreign companies and individuals also want to buy such systems from American companies. They admire and respect our technological expertise, and trust our business practices. The United States remains the envy of the world in terms of producing top-notch encryption and information security products. However, current regulations prohibit U.S. companies from exporting encryption systems stronger than the low-end, 40-bit systems. A few exceptions have been made for 56-bit systems. Until recently, it has been the administration's view that stronger encryption products are so inherently dangerous they should be classified at a level equal to munitions, and that the export of strong encryption must be heavily restricted. While we are restricting our own international commerce, foreign companies are now manufacturing and selling stronger, more desirable encryption systems, including the top-end 128-bit systems, anywhere in the world they want. Clearly, our policy doesn't make sense. Just as clearly, our export policies on encryption have not kept up to speed with either the ongoing changes in encryption technology or the needs and desires of foreign markets for U.S. encryption products. My intention is neither to jeopardize our national security nor harm law enforcement efforts. I believe we must give due and proper regard to the national security and law enforcement implications of any changes in our policy regarding export of encryption technology. But it is painfully obvious we must modernize our export policies on encryption technology, so that U.S. companies can participate in the world's encryption marketplace. The legislative initiative on this issue has always been about exports, but this summer that changed. During the past month, the FBI has attempted to change the debate by proposing a series of new mandatory controls on the domestic sale and use of encryption products. Let me be clear. There are currently no restrictions on the rights of Americans to use encryption to protect their personal financial or medical records or their private e-mail messages. There have never been domestic limitations, and similarly, American businesses have always been free to buy and use the strongest possible encryption to protect sensitive information from being stolen or changed. But now, the FBI proposes to change all that. The FBI wants to require that any company that produces or offers encryption security products or services guarantee immediate access to plain text information without the knowledge of the user. Their proposal would subject software companies and telecommunications providers to prison sentences for failure to guarantee immediate access to all information on the desktop computers of all Americans. That would move us into an entirely new world of surveillance, a very intrusive surveillance, where every communication by every individual can be accessed by the FBI. Where is probable cause? Why has the FBI assumed that all Americans are going to be involved in criminal activities? Where is the Constitution? And how would this proposal possibly help the FBI? According to a forthcoming book by the M.I.T. Press, of the tens of thousands of cases handled annually by the FBI, only a handful have involved encryption of any type, and even fewer involved encryption of computer data. Let's face it--despite the movies, the FBI solves its cases with good old- fashioned police work, questioning potential witnesses, gathering material evidence, and using electronic bugging or putting microphones on informants. Restricting encryption technology in the U.S. would not be very helpful to the FBI. The FBI proposal won't work. I have talked with experts in the world of software and cryptography, who have explained that the technology which would provide compliance with the FBI standard simply does not exist. The FBI proposal would force a large unfunded mandate on our high technology firms, at a time when there is no practical way to accomplish that mandate. Rather than solve problems in our export policy, this FBI proposal would create a whole new body of law and regulations restricting our domestic market. This and similar proposals would also have a serious impact on our foreign market. Overseas businesses and governments believe that the U.S. might use its keys to computer encryption systems to spy on their businesses and politicians. Most U.S. software and hardware manufacturers believe this is bad for business and that nobody will trust the security of U.S. encryption products if this current policy continues. In fact, this proposal appears to violate the European Union's data-privacy laws, and the European Commission is expected to reject it this week. So, the FBI proposal would: Invade our privacy; be of minimal use to the FBI; would require nonexistent technology; would create new administrative burdens; and would seriously damage our foreign markets. This is quite a list. Mr. President, the FBI proposal is simply wrong. I have learned that even the administration does not support this new FBI proposal. So why does the FBI believe it must now subject all Americans to more and more surveillance? This independent action by the FBI has created confusion and mixed signals which are troublesome for the Senate as it works on this legislation. Perhaps the FBI and the Justice Department need to focus immediately on a coordinated encryption position. Mr. President, I congratulate the members of the House Commerce Committee for rejecting this FBI approach by a vote margin of more than 2 to 1. I am sure all of my colleagues are sympathetic to the fact that emerging technologies create new problems for the FBI. But we must acknowledge several truths as Congress goes forward to find this new policy solution. People increasingly need strong information security through encryption and other means to protect their personal and business information. This demand will grow, and somebody will meet it. In the long term, it is clearly in our national interest that U.S. companies meet the market demand. Individuals and businesses will either obtain that protection from U.S. firms or from foreign firms. I firmly believe that all of our colleagues want American firms to successfully compete for this business. Today there are hundreds of suppliers of strong encryption in the world marketplace. Strong encryption can be easily downloaded off the Internet. Even if Congress wanted to police or eliminate encryption altogether, I am not sure that is doable. So, let's deal with reality. Clamping down on the constitutional rights of American citizens, in an attempt to limit the use of a technology, is the wrong solution. The wrong solution. This is especially true with encryption technology because it has so many beneficial purposes. It prevents hackers and espionage agents from stealing valuable information, or worse, from breaking into our own computer networks. It prevents them from disrupting our power supply, our financial markets, and our air traffic control system. This is scary--and precisely why we want this technology to be more available. Only a balanced solution is acceptable. Ultimately, Congress must empower Americans to protect their own information. Americans should not be forced to only communicate in ways that simply make it more convenient for law enforcement officials. This is not our national tradition. It is not consistent with our heritage. It should not become a new trend. Mr. President, I would like to establish a framework to resolve this difficult issue. I hope to discuss it with the chairmen and ranking members of the key committees. I especially look forward to working with the chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Communications, Senator Burns. He was the first to identify this issue and try to solve it legislatively. His approach on this issue has always been fair and equitable, attempting to balance industry wants with law enforcement requirements. I believe there are other possible ideas which could lead to a consensus resolution of the encryption issue. It is my hope that industry and law enforcement can come together to address these issues, not add more complexity and problems. The bill passed by the House Commerce Committee included a provision establishing a National Encryption Technology Center. It would be funded by in-kind contributions of hardware, software, and technological expertise. The National Encryption Technology Center would help the FBI stay on top of encryption and other emerging computer technologies. This is a big step. This is a big step in the right direction. It is time to build on that positive news to resolve encryption policy. Mr. President, there is an op-ed piece which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, September 26. It is well written and informative, despite the fact that its author is a good friend of mine. Mr. Jim Barksdale is the president and CEO of Netscape Communications and is well-versed in encryption technology. Mr. Barksdale's company does not make encryption products; they license such products from others. They sell Internet and business software and, as Jim has told me many times, his customers require strong encryption features and will buy those products either from us or foreign companies. Again, let's deal with reality. The credit union manager in Massachusetts, the real estate agent in Mississippi, the father writing an e-mail letter to his daughter attending a California university, each want privacy and security when using the computer. They will buy the best systems available to ensure that privacy and security. And, in just the same way, the banker in Brussels, Belgium, the rancher in Argentina, and the mother writing e-mail to her daughter in a university in Calcutta, India, each of these people also want privacy and security. They also will buy the best systems available to ensure that privacy and security. And they want encryption systems they trust--American systems. That's what this debate is about. Mr. President, if Congress does not modernize our export controls, we run the real risk of destroying the American encryption industry. And we risk giving a significant and unfair advantage to our foreign business competitors.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the adjournment resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 169; that the resolution be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, following 1 hour of debate, a vote will occur on the motion to invoke cloture with respect to the campaign finance reform bill. If cloture is not invoked, a cloture vote will then occur on the Lott amendment dealing with paycheck protection to S. 25. Therefore, Members can anticipate two back-to-back rollcall votes at approximately 1 p.m. I will notify Members as to the rest of the day. We are working now with the Democratic leader to see if we can get some understanding as to how we will proceed throughout the remainder of the day and, of course, how we will conclude the week's schedule. It is hoped that the Senate will be able to vote on the VA-HUD appropriations conference report. I believe that is pretty well agreed to. We are also hoping we will be able to get the papers and have a vote on the Transportation appropriations conference report, if a recorded vote is required. And we hope to have some discussion today on the ISTEA authorization bill. We have requests from Senators for a block of time around 4 o'clock. But we are trying now to get an understanding of how we will proceed through the remainder of the day. Once that is worked out, we will notify all the Members. Of course, we could have some action on the Executive Calendar, in addition, before we go out tonight. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Senator Hutchison and I are committed to bring the Amtrak reform bill to the floor, but not against a swell of opposition. It's a very clear cut choice. My colleagues need to decide if they want a national rail system or not.

Mr. LOTT. The Senator from Texas is correct. Amtrak is an important part of the national transportation system, not just for the Northeast Corridor, but for the entire interstate passenger rail system. This summer, in the Taxpayer Relief Act, Congress provided Amtrak with a secure source of funding for capital assets--some $2.3 billion for infrastructure. I worked hard for those funds, against considerable opposition, as did the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. Rail transportation will continue to play a critical role in the American intermodal passenger system through the 21st century. However, rail transportation of passengers cannot be done without federal and state funding. It simply cannot be done. Just as commercial air transportation of passengers would have never gotten off the ground without federal and state assistance, rail transportation of passengers will not progress unless Congress provides infrastructure assistance. Congress is willing to support Amtrak, on the condition that Amtrak be reformed. That is why we insisted that not one dime of that $2.3 billion be spent until a reform package is approved by Congress. If Amtrak is to survive, it is critical that we complete our work on the authorizing legislation. However, the Senate still has some colleagues who are holding up the authorization bill over labor provisions. These provisions are essentially identical to language that labor supported just last year. Now some of our colleagues find them unacceptable. Organized labor has joined the Administration in creating a moving target. If this continues, Amtrak may never get the capital we provided. Mr. President, there will be no capital, I repeat, no $2.3 billion in capital funds provided until an authorization is enacted. I support a national rail system, but I will not support continued inefficient use of taxpayers money. If Amtrak is ever going to operate like a business, it must have flexibility. It needs freedom from federal laws that tie its hands at the collective bargaining table. Amtrak's labor rules must be the same as the private sector's, just like in other transportation modes. Labor's unwillingness to negotiate makes it appear that severance packages are more important than rail passenger service. Mayor John Robert Smith, of Meridian, Mississippi, has noted that rail labor's message seems to be that they are more willing to allow Amtrak to go under and sacrifice all 23,000 Amtrak employees to unemployment than to allow collective bargaining in the reform bill. Like me, he is appalled that the rail union leadership, supposedly representing its workers, would abandon them for its own purposes. Equally amazing is the fact that the Amtrak reform language is language that the union leadership itself once drafted, supported, and came in my office to ask me to support. And I did.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Committee on Rules and Administration has received requests from various law enforcement entities for copies of committee records related to the committee's inquiry into the 1996 Louisiana U.S. Senate election. The committee anticipates future similar requests. In accord with standard Senate practice, this resolution would authorize the Rules Committee to provide committee records in response to these requests.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I don't have a complete schedule yet, but I believe we are ready to go to the HUD-VA appropriations conference report. We are trying to get clearance to go to Transportation appropriations conference report after that. We are still working with Senator Daschle so that we can outline the schedule for the remainder of the day. We are arranging for some debate time. We are also working on clearing some Executive Calendar nominations. Hopefully, within the next few minutes, we will be able to make some further specific announcement and try to get a UC on all of that. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and that the Senate immediately proceed to 1 hour of debate.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. As a matter of fact, I will yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield for a comment, I think there are probably more Senators and House Members that would agree with you this week than last week, I say to the Senator.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. No. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, it is a motion. But it is debatable. I understood the Senator from New Jersey intended to debate the motion.