John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Glen and Vera Emberson, who on July 9, 1998, celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary. Many things have changed in the 60 years this couple has been married, but the values principles, and commitment this marriage demonstrates are timeless. As Mr. and Mrs. Emberson celebrate their 60th year together with family and friends, it will be apparent that the lasting legacy of this marriage will be the time, energy, and resources invested in their children, community, and church, including their service as devoted missionaries. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Emberson's exemplify the highest commitment to the relentless dedication and sacrifice. Their commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be able to speak until 10 o'clock on the issue of the marriage penalty.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we are here this morning--myself and several other Senators--because the American people should experience a tax cut before Congress gets its funding for the year. We are here this morning to oppose cloture on the legislative branch appropriations bill. On Friday, Senator Brownback of Kansas, and I attempted to enter into an agreement to offer the marriage penalty elimination amendment to the legislative appropriations measure. Marriage penalty elimination means that we simply want to stop penalizing people, tax-wise, because they are married. A cloture motion was filed because the Democrats would not allow us to offer that amendment to this bill. Therefore, a vote against cloture is a vote for eliminating the marriage penalty tax. If we are not going to be able to offer this amendment to the bill, we will be back on other pieces of legislation, because this issue of providing equity to people who are married, and returning the hard-earned money of American taxpayers is too important to ignore. In 1948, President Harry Truman called the Republicans in Washington a ``do-nothing Congress.'' Now the President and Senate Democrats are resurrecting Truman's phrase. I don't worry about being called a ``do- nothing Congress.'' We have done plenty of things. But if we tried to do nothing about taxes, that label just might stick. Last April, a group of like-minded Senators and I stated our intentions to oppose the Senate budget resolution unless meaningful tax cuts were included. We were promised that eliminating the marriage penalty would be the Senate's top tax priority for 1998. Mr. President, today, the 21st day of July, there are less than 40 legislative days left in this session of the Congress; yet, we are no closer to giving the American people the tax cuts than we were 3 months ago. We stand here in mid- to late-July with the real possibility that Congress will not pass a budget reconciliation and will not deliver on the tax cut promise that was made to the American people. I think we ought to put this into context. This isn't a situation where cutting taxes would be a strain or be difficult. To add insult to injury, last week the Congressional Budget Office indicated that there would be $520 billion of surplus over the next 5 years. Now, the $520 billion of surplus over the next 5 years would be $63 billion of surplus in this year alone. We have not asked for the Moon. We have asked for a modest opportunity to cut and eliminate the marriage penalty. It would not take $520 billion. It would not take $420 billion. It would not take $320 billion. It would not take $220 billion. It would take about $1 out of every $5 that is to be provided in surplus, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So we are just asking that the American people have the opportunity to have, in return, $1 out of every $5 of surplus. This isn't asking that we have massive, Draconian cuts, or that we displace some Government program--although there are plenty of Government programs I would be happy to seek to displace. We are merely saying that, over the course of the next 5 years, some fraction--a minority fraction, as a matter of fact, not the major portion of it--of this rather substantial surplus be devoted to providing equity on the part of our taxation program, which is an insult to the values of America. I don't know of anyplace in the country you could go, or any group of individuals you could talk to that would not tell you that the families of America are simply fundamental, that if we have strong families in the next century, we are very likely to have a strong country. If we don't have strong families, it is going to be very difficult for our country to survive. I believe that when moms and dads, as families, do their job, governing America is easy. If moms and dads can't do their jobs, if we pull the rug out from under families and make it tough for them, governing America could well be impossible. The truth of the matter is that families mean more to America than Government means to America, because the fundamental restraints of a culture, the values and precepts, are taught in families. Government can try to do all those things. We have tried to replace families with Government before. The tremendous failure of the social experiment called the ``Great Society'' of the 1960s and 1970s told us that checks and Government programs weren't substitutes for moms and dads. They didn't work. What we need to do is make it possible for the culture to survive and to thrive, for the culture to prevail and to stop penalizing the most important institution in the culture--the family. Durable marriages and strong families are absolutely necessary if we are to succeed in the 21st century. Starting in the sixties is when the marriage penalty became prevalent. For about 30 years, we have systematically penalized millions of people. The truth of the matter is that there are 21 million couples--about 42 million taxpayers--who collectively have paid $29 billion. It is so easy to forget how much money a billion dollars is. A billion dollars is a thousand millions. Now, these 42 million taxpayers have collectively paid ``29-thousand-million-dollars'' more than they would have paid had they been single. That is an average marriage penalty of about $1,400 per family. Think of that. We go into a family and, simply because the mom and dad happen to be married instead of single, we take $1,400 off their table; we take $1,400 out of that family's budget. These are not pretax dollars, these are aftertax dollars. It would go right to the bottom line. Think of what a family could do with an extra $130 or $125 a month. Think of what it means to the family, the capacity of that family to fend for itself and to be able to survive as a family. We are attacking that family. The policy of America is attacking the principles of the American people. And it's easy. We can do it. CBO has told us that we are going to have five times as much money, or four times as much--a lot more money--well, $520 billion extra. We said we have to have a minimum $101 billion to begin this relief. That is five times as much as we have asked for. Yet, we are so focused on providing for the Congress, so focused on providing for the legislative branch, and we are ignoring the people of America. The families of America are more important than the legislative branch of Government. As much as I think our country needs the House and Senate, why we should provide all the funding the House and Senate need and not provide any of the relief that we have promised to the American family, why we should continue to attack the American family, is beyond me. Discriminating against Americans who wish to engage in marriage is-- well, it is just against everything we stand for. The penalizing of income at the median- and lower-income levels is greatest for married households with dependent children. The obligation to file a combined income means that the one spouse working to earn the second half of the income is working largely to feed Government coffers. Often the couple would pay a lower percentage of their income to the Government if one of its spouses was not employed outside the home. The marriage penalty is a grossly unfair assault on the bedrock of our civilization--married couples. Does the Tax Code really influence people's moral decisions to prevent couples from getting married? Unfortunately, there are individuals who simply have gotten divorced, set aside their marriages, in order to avoid the penalty that we impose for being married. Some couples even divorce and remarry to avoid paying the penalty. The Senator from Kansas brought up an example last week of two economists who divorce and remarry every year to avoid paying the higher taxes. The facts point to tragic instances of where couples simply cannot afford to get married because the Government is going to charge them $1,400 for the privilege of being married. Sharon Mallory and Darryl Pierce of Connorsville, IN, were ready to get married when they learned from their accountant that it would cost them $3,700 more a year. The amount results from the forfeiting of a tax refund check of $900 and an additional $2,700 to be owed to the IRS as a married couple. A growing number of married couples are in a similar position according to a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. (Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed the Chair.)

Mr. ASHCROFT. Now, the incentive effects of the current Tax Code were not intentional. I have to say this. I do not believe that the Congress ever set out----

Mr. ASHCROFT. I would be most pleased to yield for a question from my colleague from Kansas.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am aware of that. I thank the Senator from Kansas for the question. I am desperately aware of it. This is the time when the stress on families is the hardest. If you look at the things that break up families, if you go to data that tells us whether or not a family is going to make it past the threshold and be able to persist as a strong family with the kind of durability that has the capacity to really help our culture with the lasting relationships of support that families bring, one of the biggest items is financial problems. So here we have tender families at the very beginning, when they are struggling, they have kids, they are torn between responsibilities at the homeplace and the workplace, and what do we do? Instead of easing that financial burden, we zero in. It is almost like these families are staggering under the load they are bearing, because children are expensive, we know that--it costs a lot of money to clothe them, feed them, provide for them --and as they are struggling under that load, we come in and take another $1,400 a year off their table, out of their budgets, out of their capacity to provide for their children. It is an anomaly. It certainly wasn't something that I think the Congress ever intended. I have absolutely every faith the Congress of the United States did not intend to hurt families with the Tax Code. But it has kind of grown this way, and here is where we are. The question is not what we intended. The question is what we are going to do about this. Are we going to, at a time of $520 billion of surplus, decide we would rather feed the bureaucracy than relieve the families of America of this burden? That is plain and simple. Are we going to have new programs and more Government or are we going to have stronger families with less tax burden?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I have to answer the question of the Senator from Kansas in the affirmative. I understand that. I am aware of it, and I really think that we have a chance to say to the American people: Look, we want to give you a wedding present. We would like to say to you that we are no longer going to make it tough on you if you do the most important thing to sustain this culture in the time to come. I am a little distressed that this body does not want to let us confront that issue--I mean, there are Members of the body who do not-- and that cloture would keep us from being able to make a priority the well-being of America's families, so we do not take care of ourselves in the legislative appropriations bill and ignore the families of America with the elimination of the marriage penalty tax. I hope Members of this body will vote against cloture. Let us vote so we have the possibility of addressing the needs of American families. I, for one, commend the Senator from Kansas for his outstanding effort in this respect. At some point we simply have to stop business as usual, continuing to tax these families, taking an average of $1,400 a year off their tables, out of their budgets. When they sit down to figure out, ``What can we spend this year,'' $1,400 is more than a vacation. Lots of families can take a little time off. But it may be school books, it may be school clothing, it may have to do with whether they can--well, I am sure there are many things that individuals look at, for $1,400 a year. It is time for us simply to say: Before we continue to balloon Government, before we consume this $520 billion surplus, before we rush to governmentalize that, we should say at least some portion of this, a modest portion, far less than half, far less than a third, could sustain total relief for America's families by eliminating the marriage penalty--and it ought to be done. It should provide individuals the opportunity to say, ``We will be married, we will have durable families,'' and it should stop taking from families who are staggering under the tax load, it should stop those families from being further injured when the Government comes and says, ``We simply think we are more important than you are,'' especially as it relates to the surplus money that is supposed to be here--as a result of the hard work of the American people. I started to say this money is coming as a result of the Congressional Budget Office's estimation. What arrogance that would be. We do not bring money to Washington. Money comes to Washington because people work hard, because they are entrepreneurs, because they get up early and stay up late--take care of their kids. I thank the Senator from Kansas. I know there are others here wishing to speak. I just say eliminating the marriage penalty is important to the future of the United States of America. We should vote against cloture because we need to have the opportunity to provide this relief to America's families. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Our Tax Code has and still operates in some instances to allow combining, by having a joint return, combined return, to have a lower tax for married people, and that really results from the conscious decision we make to recognize the value to our culture of a stay-at-home spouse. It focuses attention on the children and says we ought to give some benefit taxwise for doing that. And you do that by allowing the spouse who works to attribute some income to the stay-at- home spouse. I don't think there are very many of us who are married who, when one or the other has had to stay at home, doesn't realize that the one who focuses on the homeplace and undertakes that responsibility is really responsible for income and is responsible for the benefit of the family. I believe that the ability to split the income so that you get to the lowest tax bracket is something that should be provided to everybody in marriage. I wouldn't call it a bonus as if it were giving something out. It is a recognition of the value of the spouse who stays at home and the contribution that spouse makes, not only to the marriage and to the family but the contribution they make to the country. Most of the data we are seeing now about children--and I am sure my friend from Kansas agrees with this data and has witnessed the articles and all the expounding--indicate that when one of the spouses can stay at home and spend a lot of time with the children, it is a big investment in the children and it results in children having lower incidences of bad health and lower incidences of school failure, dropout, lower incidences of juvenile delinquency and all. So that kind of attention from the family really is a social benefit to the entire culture, because if there are fewer dropouts, it means that your education system works better; if there is better health, it means the cost of the benefits of the health providers are lower; and if there is lower juvenile delinquency, it certainly means we benefit.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. Individuals from strong families contribute to society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken seriously the commitment of ``till death us do part'', demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Elsie and David Drake of Springfield, Missouri, who on July 26, 1998, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. Many things have changed in the 50 years this couple has been married, but the values, principles, and commitment this marriage demonstrates are timeless. As this couple celebrates their 50th year together with family and friends, it will be apparent that the lasting legacy of this marriage will be the time, energy, and resources invested in their children, church, and community. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we celebrate a similar milestone. The Drakes exemplify the highest commitment to the relentless dedication and sacrifice. Their commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Bruce Absheer for his lifetime service to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) in St. Louis, Missouri. On July 4, 1998, Mr. Absheer retired as ATF Inspector from the St. Louis Office of the Bureau, ending 31 years of dedicated service as a federal employee. Mr. Absheer began his career with the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms on May 1, 1967. During his long tenure as an Inspector, Bruce conducted on-site alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives inspections of these regulated industries. The inspections included examinations, analysis, and reports on operations to evaluate compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. Through his work, Mr. Absheer represented ATF with integrity, loyalty, and professionalism. His commitment to excellence earned him the ATF Employee of the Year for the Midwest region in 1987, setting new standards. As our nation looks to individuals to become more active in the workforce, I commend Bruce Absheer for his outstanding performance and service and thank him for his dedication to America. We wish him the very best as he moves on to face new challenges, opportunities, and rewards.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to express my profound concern for the International Criminal Court that was overwhelmingly approved in Rome late on Friday. I was pleased that the United States voted against final passage of this global criminal court. The Administration should be commended for rejecting this international folly, which would have been dead on arrival in the Senate. Unfortunately, however, the danger from this Court has not passed. The Administration is already coming under pressure from proponents of the court to reconsider its opposition. Even more disturbing is the possibility that the Court would assert jurisdiction over American soldiers, despite the American refusal to join the court. The Administration should ``just say no'' to any efforts to get the United States to reconsider or to signal any informal compliance with the Court. As both a Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights, I find the International Criminal Court profoundly troubling. If there is one critical component of sovereignty it is the authority to define crimes and punishments. This Court strikes at the heart of sovereignty by taking this fundamental power away from individual countries and giving it to international bureaucrats. There are other aspects of this Court that are equally troubling. As examples, the authorization of international independent prosecutors, the expense of such a permanent court, and the lack of any clear limits on the Court's jurisdiction are all alarming. But no aspect of this Court is more troubling than the fact that it has been framed without any apparent respect for--indeed, in direct contravention of--the United States Constitution. As Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I have a number of particular concerns about the Court. First and foremost, I remain concerned by the possibility that Americans could be dragged before this Court and denied the protections of the Bill of Rights. Even more fundamentally, I am concerned that the Administration participated in these negotiations without making any effort to insist that the proposed International Criminal Court incorporate and honor the Bill of Rights. Even if one concedes that we need an International Criminal Court--which I emphatically do not--we should certainly insist on respect for the Bill of Rights as the price of American admission. America's ideals and values are ascendant in the post-Cold War world. America's position as world leader is, in no small part, a product of a Constitution that is the envy of the world. The Administration should be justly proud of that Constitution and should have insisted that those principles form the cornerstone for any International Criminal Court. That unfortunately was not the official position of this Administration. In the United States, there is a right to a jury of your peers. In the United States, there is a privilege against self-incrimination. In the United States, we have eliminated the prospect of criminal liability for ill-defined common law crimes. In the United States, the Constitution limits the authority of prosecutors. None of these protections will be guaranteed for defendants brought before this international star chamber. The proposed Court negotiated in Rome neither reflects nor guarantees the protections of the Bill of Rights. The Administration was right to reject the Court and must remain steadfast in its refusal to join a court that stands as a rejection of American constitutional values. We must never trade away American sovereignty and the Bill of Rights so that international bureaucrats can sit in judgment of the United States military and our criminal justice system. In today's New York Times, there is an opinion piece in which Anthony Lewis chastises the United States for missing a historic opportunity by failing to vote in favor of the International Criminal Court. The author states that the vote to form the International Criminal Court ``will be seen as a turn in the road of history.'' That is perhaps the only point in the piece with which I agree. The approval of this Court was indeed ``a turn in the road of history.'' By ceding the authority to define and punish crimes, many nations took an irrevocable step to the loss of national sovereignty and the reality of global government. I, for one, am heartened to see that the United States took the right turn on the road of history, and I will work hard to ensure that there is no backtracking.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Now, this week the Congressional Budget Office has forecast a surplus over the next 5 years. And that surplus has really been growing dramatically. It started out about 4 or 5 months ago that they said it might be $140-some billion. Now they have taken the surplus projection to--how much over the next 5 years?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Is the Senator from Kansas aware of the fact that that has actually happened? There are a number of couples that decided to get a divorce so that in the eyes of the law they are divorced so that they could get this subsidy for divorce from the Federal Government?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Would the Senator from Kansas agree that a marriage penalty not only would provide a disincentive for people to get married, but it might, as a matter of fact, provide an incentive for some people who are married to get a divorce?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator from Kansas yield for a question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Would the Senator from Kansas agree that when the Senator from Kentucky talks about a bonus, he is talking about a situation where one of the two marriage partners is not employed outside the home; and really what the tax law does is allow, in some respect, part of the income to be assigned to that partner, some of the cost be assigned to that partner, and for that reason there is a theoretical bonus? But would the Senator agree it is important to understand that in marriage that there are a lot of respects in which it is appropriate that the ``nonemployed spouse'' be understood as having contributed substantially to the proceeds of the family that result from the employed spouse's earnings?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. So that is money that is supposed to be in excess of what we would otherwise budget?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask you--we have $520 billion in surplus--how much of the surplus would it take in order to eliminate the marriage penalty?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Less than one-third.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Would the Senator agree our tax laws literally are suggesting that people get divorced and remarried and then fritter away or otherwise use the proceeds of this anomalous provision in the code?

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment because it addresses the most pressing illegal drug problem facing our state and, perhaps, our country. As my colleague explained, our amendment provides for a lifetime ban for individuals who manufacture or produce methamphetamine on public housing premises. Specifically, the amendment requires public housing agencies to prohibit occupancy in any public housing unit by any person convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine in violation of federal or state law. Current tenants convicted of meth manufacturing will be evicted immediately and permanently. The need for this amendment could not be clearer. According to the Drug Czar's office, methamphetamine is by far the most prevalent synthetic controlled substance manufactured in the United States. This fact is not news to my constituents in Missouri. Last year alone, authorities seized 396 meth labs in Missouri, more than double the number of labs seized in California. Congress has taken some significant steps to address the growing meth problem. I was proud to have sponsored the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 and to have helped secure funding for the creation of a high-intensity drug trafficking area in the Midwest. We have tried to target meth production by giving it higher priority in the demand for limited federal resources. Unfortunately, the meth problem has become a crisis. Just this past weekend, the National Institute of Justice released a study showing that methamphetamine use among adult arrestees and detainees has risen to alarming levels. The problem is not confined to adults, however. Among 12th graders, the use of ice, which is a slang term for a very pure, smokeable form of meth, has risen 60 percent since 1992. The amendment we are offering today sends a clear signal to meth producers: We will not tolerate your behavior and we certainly will not subsidize it. If you want to turn your taxpayer-subsidized residence into a meth lab, the only public housing you will be eligible for in the future is the penitentiary. Our amendment attacks the problem of meth production and manufacture in federal housing projects in order to protect the safety and welfare of those law-abiding individuals who need subsidized housing. The sponsor of this amendment, my colleague from Missouri, deserves a great deal of credit for his lead role in cracking down on drug users and dealers in public housing. In 1996, he was instrumental in getting Congress to pass a provision requiring the eviction of any tenant from publicly or federally assisted housing if that tenant is determined to be involved in a drug-related criminal activity. As a result of his efforts, tenants involved in drugs are prohibited from receiving federal housing assistance for three years or until the evicted tenant successfully meets certain rehabilitation requirements. These provisions were designed to ensure the safety and security of families living in public housing. In addition, the reforms sought to instill responsibility in families participating in the federally assisted housing programs and to emphasize that federal housing assistance is a privilege, not a right. The amendment we are offering today extends and strengthens these provisions to address the deadly consequences of meth production. Meth labs have been called toxic time bombs, containing highly flammable materials and deadly chemicals. As DEA Special Agent Michael Cashman has observed, ``The investigation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories is one of the few instances where the evidence and crime scene can hurt or even kill the investigator.'' Clandestine lab explosions are responsible for killing and injuring not only meth producers and law enforcement investigators, but innocent bystanders as well. Just last year, a four-year-old child was killed in Arizona when the meth lab his parents had erected in their apartment caught on fire. As horrifying as this case is, it is not an isolated incident. Within the last couple of years, other innocent young children of meth-producing addicts as well as heroic law enforcement agents have been victimized by the highly dangerous enterprise of meth manufacturing. As the epidemic of meth production has grown, so has its presence in public housing. When I asked local prosecutors if they knew of recent manufacturing activities in Missouri, it seemed everyone had a story or two to tell. In Dekalb County, two men recently pled guilty to attempted manufacturing of meth in a public housing unit. Sadly, when police made the arrest, they found not only gas cans, paint thinner, butane fuel, and other meth paraphernalia, but an infant girl. In Platte County, a man living in section 8 housing was recently convicted of meth production, possession, and endangering the welfare of a child. And, in Grundy County, two recipients of federal housing assistance were found guilty recently of attempting to manufacture meth in their apartment. Mr. President, these examples were obtained with just a few phone calls. I do not doubt that many of my colleagues have heard about similar crimes from police and prosecutors in their states. We need to get serious again about fighting the use of meth and all illegal drugs in this country. I say ``again'' because for the past five and one-half years, the Clinton-Gore Administration has failed to provide leadership on this critical threat to our nation. Since President Clinton took office, use of marijuana by 8th graders has increased 176 percent. Cocaine and heroin use among 10th graders have more than doubled. And, as I mentioned before, use of meth ice has risen 60 percent on this Administration's watch. Even if it is accepted, this amendment will not single-handedly reverse these frightening trends. It is, however, a step in the right direction. It sends the signal this Congress needs to send; namely, that the dangerous manufacture of illegal drugs in public housing is unacceptable. I want to thank my colleague again for his leadership on this issue. He understands the destruction meth has caused in our state and around the country, and his amendment is an appropriate response. I am glad to join him in this effort.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for several years we have debated, argued and discussed the real economic impact of continuing to follow the Administration's wrong-headed policy on encryption. In addition to the Administration, several members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have refused to consider many of the facts of encryption technology and the importance of the technology sector to our robust economy. After all these years, we have an historical opportunity to debate encryption on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. ASHCROFT. All that said, encryption and digital signatures do not and should not be joined in the same legislation. The opportunity we have before us is to bring the encryption debate into the open and to pass legislation that adequately addresses the concerns of law enforcement, national security, privacy, and system security.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The bottom line to all of this is that we can move encryption legislation in this Congress, with the support of the majority leader. To hold up this progress works against national security, works against support of our law enforcement and erodes individual's privacy protections. We should all diligently work to craft an encryption bill that can come to the floor this session.