John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on an issue that I find very important to the future of this country's leading position in the technology, and that is encryption. This issue has been under consideration since I first came to Capitol Hill, and for more than three years nothing has been accomplished by way of assistance to law enforcement, or to industry, or most importantly to the users of encryption in this country. My first involvement in this entire discussion came about as a result of the need for protection and privacy. If we are to operate at our highest and best in the information age, instead of settling for something very far below our potential, we are going to need privacy and protection, and we are going to need the ability to operate with integrity on the Internet. The Internet has to be something more than speaking on the public square, it has to have the ability to allow individuals to communicate with each other. It has to have the same kind of rights and protections that are accorded to other aspects of communication. Without this privacy, the potential of the Internet is destroyed. In my judgment, the Internet would be destined to become just a sort of international bull session, nothing more than an international party line of commentary, or an international broadcast device. I do not believe it will fulfill its potential as a communication, entertainment, commercial and educational opportunity unless Internet communications are secure and the right of privacy is respected. The Internet allows for the most participatory form of communications ever. In order for us to be able to both invite participation by everyone, and to be able to take advantage of it, we have to be able to exclude some parties from a particular communication. I do not know of any more successful exclusion technique in the electronic world than encryption, especially when so much information is going to be transmitted digitally, much of it through space as well as over hard lines of communication. We have a tremendous potential for commerce on the Internet: everything from selling clothes, to real estate, to software itself. Electronic commerce has not reached its full potential, but it can. I think we've got a big agenda there, not just encryption but we've got to have legally binding signature legislation and therefore solid encryption. Resisting efforts for mandatory domestic key recovery is also crucial. We have to remind ourselves that the Internet is like so much of the rest of the culture--government can't solve all the problems. At least we have to plead for restraint by those who would harm this technology. As I have said before, now is the time to draw a bright line against federal regulation of the computer industry. Washington must not start down the road of dreaming up regulations to fix problems that may or may not exist. Two things can be predicted with confidence about congressional meddling in this sector of the economy. First, legislation will be obsolete on the day it is passed. Second, it will hurt consumers, workers, shareholders, and the economy. If Congress had helped set up the transportation industry, there still might be a livery stable in every town, and buggy whip factories in large cities. The irrationality of limiting the United States to levels of encryption which are far below what the world market is demanding and supplying in other settings, has been mind boggling. This legislation declares that American companies will be full and active participants in the encryption industry. Today, numerous editions of leading American designed and manufactured software bears the stamp, ``Not for sale outside the United States,'' because the software features robust encryption. That stamp does nothing to make Americans more secure, but it does provide aid and comfort to foreign competitors of American business. This legislation would eliminate that stamp once and for all. Encryption, of course, is the most important issue to the future of electronic commerce and if we are to foster the integrity of the Internet we must have the means of communication domestically and international. I have to reaffirm that we must allow the software industry to compete in an international market where robust encryption already takes place. Months ago I went to a Commerce Committee meeting and took with me an ad from the Internet, which was from Seimens company in Germany advertising robust 128 bit encryption, saying that you can't get this from a U.S. manufacturer. The advertisement also indicated, however, that if you buy this you can use it in the United States and you can use it overseas as well, and, so if you want to have robust encryption buy it from Seimens. The Administration has decided to tie the hands of the U.S. encryption industry. To me that's a disaster, but it is also compounded by people beginning to develop relationships with foreign software providers as a result of the unavailability of 128 bit or robust encryption on the part of U.S. providers. To see the Germans eagerly promoting this potential, and to have people from my own jurisdiction, from the state of Missouri, say, ``John, we have an office in Singapore, we have to be able to speak with them confidentially and communicate with them, and the government is making it impossible for us to send the encryption that we can use domestically. We can't send it to our office in Singapore because we are ineligible to export it.'' I don't want the situation to be such that I have to say, ``Well, go to Seimens in Germany.'' From Seimens you can buy the encryption that can be sent into the United States and from Seimens in Germany it can be sent to Singapore and so you can have your cake and eat it too by dealing with a non-domestic firm. For us to have a policy which provides for the slitting of our own throats, in a technology arena, where we have held the lead and must continue to hold the lead, I think is foolhardy to say the least. If we are to mark the next century as an ``American Century,'' or even to celebrate this week as high technology week in the Senate, we must be forward thinking and acting. This bill moves us away from antiquated export laws to a future in which American companies will be able to compete in the international marketplace without having one hand tied behind their back by the federal government. This bill also clarifies the proper approach for encryption domestically as we move ahead in the digital age. The Administration and the FBI first indicated support for language that would mandate key recovery for all domestic encryption and now support several suggested approaches that would make using domestic key escrow a practical-- though not legal--necessity. Director Freeh has gone so far as to mention the need for a new Fourth Amendment that considers the realities of the digital age. I think we need a new and improved approach to domestic encryption, not a new updated version of the Fourth Amendment. I, for one, am not eagerly awaiting the FBI's new release of Fourth Amendment 2.0 or First Amendment '98. I think we have to work together to find a reasonable alternative to the current Administration policy and I think we have to ensure secure transactions. That's a clear responsibility. We can't have a situation where we don't have security and integrity in our business transactions. We have to be able to compete effectively in a worldwide marketplace. For us to limit our own potential in terms of competition makes no sense. We have to make sure that we don't allow those who would use information improperly or illegally to have access to it. That has to do with securing the transactions, and the integrity of the Internet as well. This legislation is the solution to the problem. It is well thought out and attempts to address the legitimate concerns of all affected parties. I will seek passage of this legislation in this Congress and will commit the resources of my office that may be needed to achieve this end. Business Week has recently reported that 61 percent of adults responded that they would be more likely to go on-line if the privacy of their information and communications would be protected. Mr. President, simply put, strong encryption means a strong economy. Mandatory access, by contrast, means weaker encryption and a less secure, and therefore less valuable, network. I ask for unanimous consent that the entire bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on an issue that I find very important to the future of this country's leading position in the technology, and that is encryption. This issue has been under consideration since I first came to Capitol Hill, and for more than three years nothing has been accomplished by way of assistance to law enforcement, or to industry, or most importantly to the users of encryption in this country. My first involvement in this entire discussion came about as a result of the need for protection and privacy. If we are to operate at our highest and best in the information age, instead of settling for something very far below our potential, we are going to need privacy and protection, and we are going to need the ability to operate with integrity on the Internet. The Internet has to be something more than speaking on the public square, it has to have the ability to allow individuals to communicate with each other. It has to have the same kind of rights and protections that are accorded to other aspects of communication. Without this privacy, the potential of the Internet is destroyed. In my judgment, the Internet would be destined to become just a sort of international bull session, nothing more than an international party line of commentary, or an international broadcast device. I do not believe it will fulfill its potential as a communication, entertainment, commercial and educational opportunity unless Internet communications are secure and the right of privacy is respected. The Internet allows for the most participatory form of communications ever. In order for us to be able to both invite participation by everyone, and to be able to take advantage of it, we have to be able to exclude some parties from a particular communication. I do not know of any more successful exclusion technique in the electronic world than encryption, especially when so much information is going to be transmitted digitally, much of it through space as well as over hard lines of communication. We have a tremendous potential for commerce on the Internet: everything from selling clothes, to real estate, to software itself. Electronic commerce has not reached its full potential, but it can. I think we've got a big agenda there, not just encryption but we've got to have legally binding signature legislation and therefore solid encryption. Resisting efforts for mandatory domestic key recovery is also crucial. We have to remind ourselves that the Internet is like so much of the rest of the culture--government can't solve all the problems. At least we have to plead for restraint by those who would harm this technology. As I have said before, now is the time to draw a bright line against federal regulation of the computer industry. Washington must not start down the road of dreaming up regulations to fix problems that may or may not exist. Two things can be predicted with confidence about congressional meddling in this sector of the economy. First, legislation will be obsolete on the day it is passed. Second, it will hurt consumers, workers, shareholders, and the economy. If Congress had helped set up the transportation industry, there still might be a livery stable in every town, and buggy whip factories in large cities. The irrationality of limiting the United States to levels of encryption which are far below what the world market is demanding and supplying in other settings, has been mind boggling. This legislation declares that American companies will be full and active participants in the encryption industry. Today, numerous editions of leading American designed and manufactured software bears the stamp, ``Not for sale outside the United States,'' because the software features robust encryption. That stamp does nothing to make Americans more secure, but it does provide aid and comfort to foreign competitors of American business. This legislation would eliminate that stamp once and for all. Encryption, of course, is the most important issue to the future of electronic commerce and if we are to foster the integrity of the Internet we must have the means of communication domestically and international. I have to reaffirm that we must allow the software industry to compete in an international market where robust encryption already takes place. Months ago I went to a Commerce Committee meeting and took with me an ad from the Internet, which was from Seimens company in Germany advertising robust 128 bit encryption, saying that you can't get this from a U.S. manufacturer. The advertisement also indicated, however, that if you buy this you can use it in the United States and you can use it overseas as well, and, so if you want to have robust encryption buy it from Seimens. The Administration has decided to tie the hands of the U.S. encryption industry. To me that's a disaster, but it is also compounded by people beginning to develop relationships with foreign software providers as a result of the unavailability of 128 bit or robust encryption on the part of U.S. providers. To see the Germans eagerly promoting this potential, and to have people from my own jurisdiction, from the state of Missouri, say, ``John, we have an office in Singapore, we have to be able to speak with them confidentially and communicate with them, and the government is making it impossible for us to send the encryption that we can use domestically. We can't send it to our office in Singapore because we are ineligible to export it.'' I don't want the situation to be such that I have to say, ``Well, go to Seimens in Germany.'' From Seimens you can buy the encryption that can be sent into the United States and from Seimens in Germany it can be sent to Singapore and so you can have your cake and eat it too by dealing with a non-domestic firm. For us to have a policy which provides for the slitting of our own throats, in a technology arena, where we have held the lead and must continue to hold the lead, I think is foolhardy to say the least. If we are to mark the next century as an ``American Century,'' or even to celebrate this week as high technology week in the Senate, we must be forward thinking and acting. This bill moves us away from antiquated export laws to a future in which American companies will be able to compete in the international marketplace without having one hand tied behind their back by the federal government. This bill also clarifies the proper approach for encryption domestically as we move ahead in the digital age. The Administration and the FBI first indicated support for language that would mandate key recovery for all domestic encryption and now support several suggested approaches that would make using domestic key escrow a practical-- though not legal--necessity. Director Freeh has gone so far as to mention the need for a new Fourth Amendment that considers the realities of the digital age. I think we need a new and improved approach to domestic encryption, not a new updated version of the Fourth Amendment. I, for one, am not eagerly awaiting the FBI's new release of Fourth Amendment 2.0 or First Amendment '98. I think we have to work together to find a reasonable alternative to the current Administration policy and I think we have to ensure secure transactions. That's a clear responsibility. We can't have a situation where we don't have security and integrity in our business transactions. We have to be able to compete effectively in a worldwide marketplace. For us to limit our own potential in terms of competition makes no sense. We have to make sure that we don't allow those who would use information improperly or illegally to have access to it. That has to do with securing the transactions, and the integrity of the Internet as well. This legislation is the solution to the problem. It is well thought out and attempts to address the legitimate concerns of all affected parties. I will seek passage of this legislation in this Congress and will commit the resources of my office that may be needed to achieve this end. Business Week has recently reported that 61 percent of adults responded that they would be more likely to go on-line if the privacy of their information and communications would be protected. Mr. President, simply put, strong encryption means a strong economy. Mandatory access, by contrast, means weaker encryption and a less secure, and therefore less valuable, network. I ask for unanimous consent that the entire bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for years, America's charities and churches have been transforming shattered lives by addressing the deeper needs of people--by instilling hope and values which help change behavior and attitudes. By contrast, government social programs have failed miserably in moving recipients from dependency and despair to responsibility and independence. Successful faith-based organizations now have a new opportunity to transform the character of our welfare system under the ``Charitable Choice'' provision contained in the 1996 welfare reform law. Charitable Choice allows--but does not require--states to contract with charitable, religious or private organizations, or to create voucher systems, to deliver welfare services within the states. The provision requires states to consider these organizations on an equal basis with other private groups once a state decides to use nongovernmental organizations. The Charitable Choice legislation provides specific protections for religious organizations when they provide services. For example, the government cannot discriminate against an organization on the basis of its religious character. A participating faith-based organization retains its independence from government, including control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs. Additionally, the government cannot require a religious organization to alter its form of internal governance or remove religious art, icons, or symbols to be eligible to participate. Finally, religious organizations may consider religious beliefs and practices in their employment decisions. The Charitable Choice legislation also provides specific protections to beneficiaries of assistance. A religious organization can't discriminate against a beneficiary on account of religion. And if a beneficiary objects to receiving services from a religious organization, he or she has a right to an alternate provider. Finally, there is a limitation on use of government funds. Federal contract dollars cannot be used for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization. I would like to give a couple of examples of how the Charitable Choice provision of the welfare law is currently working. Last fall, Payne Memorial Outreach Center, the non-profit community development arm of the 100-year-old Payne Memorial African Methodist Episcopal Church, in Baltimore, received a $1.5 million state contract to launch an innovative job training and placement program. In a matter of only five months, over 100 welfare recipients successfully obtained employment through their participation in Payne's program. A brochure from this dynamic faith-based institution describes why Payne is successful: ``The Intensive Job Service Program reaches out in love to Baltimore's most disenfranchised, helping them to identify and strengthen their God-given talents--releasing and developing their human possibilities.'' Another example of Charitable Choice at work is in Shreveport, Louisiana, where the ``Faith and Families'' program, under a contract with the state, is running a successful job placement program. Faith and Families offers job-readiness classes in northwestern Louisiana, helps set up job interviews, and opens doors into the workplace. The program also links welfare families with faith communities. Churches are asked to adopt a family and provide assistance--possibly child care, transportation, work experience, tutoring, and encouragement--that will help them make the transition from welfare to work. I spoke with the director of Faith and Families in Shreveport just last week, and he told me that his organization has helped 400 people get off welfare and find jobs. These examples demonstrate that under the Charitable Choice provision of the welfare law, caring, faith-based organizations are providing effective services that help individuals move from dependency to independence, from despair to dignity. With this in mind, today I am introducing ``The Charitable Choice Expansion Act of 1998,'' which expands the Charitable Choice concept to all federal laws which authorize the government to use non-governmental entities to provide services to beneficiaries with federal dollars. The substance of the Charitable Choice Expansion Act is virtually identical to that of the original Charitable Choice provision of the welfare reform law. The only real difference between the two provisions is that the new bill covers many more federal programs than the original provision. While the original Charitable Choice provision applies mainly to the new welfare reform block grant program, the Charitable Choice Expansion Act applies to all federal government programs in which the government is authorized to use nongovernmental organizations to provide federally funded services to beneficiaries. Some of the programs that will be covered include: housing, substance abuse prevention and treatment, juvenile services, seniors services, the Community Development Block Grant, the Community Services Block Grant, the Social Services Block Grant, abstinence education, and child welfare services. The legislation does not cover elementary and secondary education programs--except it does cover GED programs--or higher education programs. Further, the bill does not affect the Head Start program or the Child Care Development Block Grant program, both of which already contain certain provisions regarding the use of religious organizations in delivering services under those programs. We have taken measures to strengthen the bill by providing more protections to both beneficiaries and religious organizations. For example, the government must ensure that beneficiaries receive notice of their right under the bill to object to receiving services from a religious organization. Additionally, religious organizations must segregate their own private funds from government funding. This proposal is necessary because while some areas of the law may not contain discriminatory language towards religious organizations, many government officials may assume wrongly that the Establishment Clause bars religious organizations from participating as private providers. The Charitable Choice Expansion Act embodies existing case precedents to clarify to government officials and religious organizations alike that it is constitutionally allowable, and even constitutionally required, to consider religious organizations on an equal basis with other private providers. It is my hope that these protections in the law will encourage successful charitable and faith-based organizations to expand their services while assuring them that they will not have to extinguish their religious character when receiving government funds. I am pleased to say that there is broad-based support for the Charitable Choice Expansion Act. Some of the organizations supporting the concept of this legislation include Agudath Israel, American Center for Law and Justice, Call to Renewal, Center for Public Justice, Christian Coalition, Christian Legal Society, the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education, National Association of Evangelicals, the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, the Salvation Army, Teen Challenge International USA, and World Vision. America's faith-based charities and nongovernmental organizations, from the Salvation Army to Catholic Charities, have moved people successfully from dependency and despair to the dignity of self- reliance. Government alone will never cure our societal ills. We need to find ways to help unleash the cultural remedy administered so effectively by charitable and religious organizations. Allowing a ``charitable choice'' will help transform the lives of those in need and unleash an effective response to today's challenges in our culture.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for years, America's charities and churches have been transforming shattered lives by addressing the deeper needs of people--by instilling hope and values which help change behavior and attitudes. By contrast, government social programs have failed miserably in moving recipients from dependency and despair to responsibility and independence. Successful faith-based organizations now have a new opportunity to transform the character of our welfare system under the ``Charitable Choice'' provision contained in the 1996 welfare reform law. Charitable Choice allows--but does not require--states to contract with charitable, religious or private organizations, or to create voucher systems, to deliver welfare services within the states. The provision requires states to consider these organizations on an equal basis with other private groups once a state decides to use nongovernmental organizations. The Charitable Choice legislation provides specific protections for religious organizations when they provide services. For example, the government cannot discriminate against an organization on the basis of its religious character. A participating faith-based organization retains its independence from government, including control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs. Additionally, the government cannot require a religious organization to alter its form of internal governance or remove religious art, icons, or symbols to be eligible to participate. Finally, religious organizations may consider religious beliefs and practices in their employment decisions. The Charitable Choice legislation also provides specific protections to beneficiaries of assistance. A religious organization can't discriminate against a beneficiary on account of religion. And if a beneficiary objects to receiving services from a religious organization, he or she has a right to an alternate provider. Finally, there is a limitation on use of government funds. Federal contract dollars cannot be used for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization. I would like to give a couple of examples of how the Charitable Choice provision of the welfare law is currently working. Last fall, Payne Memorial Outreach Center, the non-profit community development arm of the 100-year-old Payne Memorial African Methodist Episcopal Church, in Baltimore, received a $1.5 million state contract to launch an innovative job training and placement program. In a matter of only five months, over 100 welfare recipients successfully obtained employment through their participation in Payne's program. A brochure from this dynamic faith-based institution describes why Payne is successful: ``The Intensive Job Service Program reaches out in love to Baltimore's most disenfranchised, helping them to identify and strengthen their God-given talents--releasing and developing their human possibilities.'' Another example of Charitable Choice at work is in Shreveport, Louisiana, where the ``Faith and Families'' program, under a contract with the state, is running a successful job placement program. Faith and Families offers job-readiness classes in northwestern Louisiana, helps set up job interviews, and opens doors into the workplace. The program also links welfare families with faith communities. Churches are asked to adopt a family and provide assistance--possibly child care, transportation, work experience, tutoring, and encouragement--that will help them make the transition from welfare to work. I spoke with the director of Faith and Families in Shreveport just last week, and he told me that his organization has helped 400 people get off welfare and find jobs. These examples demonstrate that under the Charitable Choice provision of the welfare law, caring, faith-based organizations are providing effective services that help individuals move from dependency to independence, from despair to dignity. With this in mind, today I am introducing ``The Charitable Choice Expansion Act of 1998,'' which expands the Charitable Choice concept to all federal laws which authorize the government to use non-governmental entities to provide services to beneficiaries with federal dollars. The substance of the Charitable Choice Expansion Act is virtually identical to that of the original Charitable Choice provision of the welfare reform law. The only real difference between the two provisions is that the new bill covers many more federal programs than the original provision. While the original Charitable Choice provision applies mainly to the new welfare reform block grant program, the Charitable Choice Expansion Act applies to all federal government programs in which the government is authorized to use nongovernmental organizations to provide federally funded services to beneficiaries. Some of the programs that will be covered include: housing, substance abuse prevention and treatment, juvenile services, seniors services, the Community Development Block Grant, the Community Services Block Grant, the Social Services Block Grant, abstinence education, and child welfare services. The legislation does not cover elementary and secondary education programs--except it does cover GED programs--or higher education programs. Further, the bill does not affect the Head Start program or the Child Care Development Block Grant program, both of which already contain certain provisions regarding the use of religious organizations in delivering services under those programs. We have taken measures to strengthen the bill by providing more protections to both beneficiaries and religious organizations. For example, the government must ensure that beneficiaries receive notice of their right under the bill to object to receiving services from a religious organization. Additionally, religious organizations must segregate their own private funds from government funding. This proposal is necessary because while some areas of the law may not contain discriminatory language towards religious organizations, many government officials may assume wrongly that the Establishment Clause bars religious organizations from participating as private providers. The Charitable Choice Expansion Act embodies existing case precedents to clarify to government officials and religious organizations alike that it is constitutionally allowable, and even constitutionally required, to consider religious organizations on an equal basis with other private providers. It is my hope that these protections in the law will encourage successful charitable and faith-based organizations to expand their services while assuring them that they will not have to extinguish their religious character when receiving government funds. I am pleased to say that there is broad-based support for the Charitable Choice Expansion Act. Some of the organizations supporting the concept of this legislation include Agudath Israel, American Center for Law and Justice, Call to Renewal, Center for Public Justice, Christian Coalition, Christian Legal Society, the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education, National Association of Evangelicals, the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, the Salvation Army, Teen Challenge International USA, and World Vision. America's faith-based charities and nongovernmental organizations, from the Salvation Army to Catholic Charities, have moved people successfully from dependency and despair to the dignity of self- reliance. Government alone will never cure our societal ills. We need to find ways to help unleash the cultural remedy administered so effectively by charitable and religious organizations. Allowing a ``charitable choice'' will help transform the lives of those in need and unleash an effective response to today's challenges in our culture.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the amendment which I have just sent to the desk, known as the Ashcroft-Leahy amendment, would strike a one- sentence provision that holds taxpayers as guilty until proven innocent. The IRS would deem a minimum level of security of a personal identification number code assigned each taxpayer for purposes of electronic filing as actually more binding than an analog signature. Let me just sort of put that in ordinary language. Ordinarily, it is the responsibility of the IRS in seeking to act upon a tax return to prove that the signature is actually the signature of the person who purportedly signed it. For those individuals signing electronically, this provision would be reversed so that a person who signs electronically would be discriminated against as compared to an individual who signs in analog form. That is a problem, but it is really not nearly the problem that comes when you just open the door to the legal nightmare for taxpayers who might be victims of electronic identity theft, where their identity is stolen electronically, whose pin codes or real electronic signature is fraudulently used. And secondly, not only does it subject people to that kind of risk, but it makes very bad technology policy. As we begin to welcome the use of technology to alleviate the kind of burden that is both on taxpayers and on the individuals in the bureaucracy, it is time for us to welcome the kind of technology which would provide valid authentication but not to switch to individuals who provide their tax returns via the Internet or via electronic filing a kind of discrimination which would be a disincentive for them to use the program. The IRS is wedded to technology that is decades old. The kind of things they are talking about, the PIN code system would only make matters worse. A PIN code that anyone can type is not a secure means of authenticating documents. As we proceed into the future of electronic signatures with the use of a wide variety of technologies that will provide for authentication, it is important that we not, in the law, place this prejudice against the use of technology. Currently, the Internal Revenue Service plans to implement electronic filing by means of a taxpayer PIN code that would actually be more authoritative than a written signature, so the person filing with a written signature would not undertake some of the responsibilities and liabilities people do with the electronic filing. That disparity in the way people are treated is not reasonable, it is not appropriate, and it is counterproductive. The IRS should use the best technology available for protection of such sensitive information and help to ensure the future of electronic commerce. So we offer this Ashcroft-Leahy amendment which simply would strike the one-sentence provision that reverses, in terms of signatures on the Internet, the normal burdens of proof and the normal responsibility of the person proving up the document to prove the authenticity of the signature. To change in this respect for those who file electronically would be to repudiate hundreds of years of legal tradition, in terms of those seeking to prove up documents, that they prove the signature when they prove up the document. Madam President, the Finance Committee version of this bill would establish a presumption against taxpayers filing electronically signed tax returns which does not exist for paper returns and which could have devastating consequences. Unless the Senate strikes this presumption, and opposes a similar provision in the House-passed version of this legislation, we will be leaving open the very real possibility that taxpayers who have been the victims of electronic identity theft will find themselves presumed guilty. Do we really want the innocent victim of a malicious computer hacker, forging spouse, a conniving business partner, or an embezzling accountant, to be confronted with a potentially insurmountable evidentiary hurdle when they assert that they either did not sign a tax document, or that the document has been materially altered since they signed it? What is worse is that this provision only places this burden on those who file electronically-- another bias against technology. Electronic tax filing is clearly the wave of the future and is the best method for both the IRS and taxpayers. For tax year 1997 24.2 million returns--one in five--were filed electronically, up from 19 million in the preceding year. Electronic filing is more efficient and accurate for all parties, but taxpayers should not be asked to give up rights in order to use this better technology. Certainly we did not ask for a greater burden to be placed on taxpayers who use a typewriter instead of a pen to prepare their taxes. This language in the IRS bill is the first federal statutory language dealing with the authentication of electronic interaction between citizens and the Federal government. It is very important that we set the right precedent. But this presumption is completely at odds with the view of legal experts on electronic commerce and evidence and would set precisely the wrong precedent. If this presumption becomes law inevitable ``horror stories'' will result. For many Americans, electronic authentication of their tax returns will be their first experience with an all-electronic transaction. We must be careful that we do not permit situations to occur which will cause the public to feel that electronic commerce and transactions should be avoided if they want to preserve their rights. This presumption is antithetical to the jurisprudence developing in the area of cyberlaw. There are several measures being considered in Congress dealing with broad issues of electronic signatures, and none of them proposes to set such an adverse evidentiary standard against those who employ electronic authentication. The drafting committee of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, which is laboring to produce a model Electronic Authentication Act for consideration by state legislatures, has just voted to delete any presumptions pertaining to electronic signatures from that civil law measure. The Committee on Cyberspace Law of the American Bar Association's Business Law Section discussed this IRS presumption at their last meeting and voted to authorize communications to the Senate opposing the provision. Additionally, the Working Groups on Evidence and on Law and Regulation of the Information Security Committee of the ABA's Science and Technology Section recommended that no presumptions as to identity and intent should attach to an electronic signature. With many of the experts in this developing legal area reaching consensus that presumptions should not operate against electronic signatories even in a civil law context, how can we justify establishing one which can be utilized against taxpayers in criminal prosecutions? Let's be clear on what this legislation does in its present form. It authorizes the IRS to develop procedures for the acceptance of signatures in digital and electronic form so that electronically filing taxpayers no longer have to send a signed paper form 8453 to the IRS. That is good policy. It establishes the principle that an electronically signed tax document shall be treated for all civil and criminal purposes as a paper document. And that too is good policy. But it permits the IRS to provide for alternative means of subscribing to electronic documents until it adopts procedures for digital and electronic signatures. And it would allow any IRS-authorized method of subscription to create a presumption that the taxpayer actually submitted and subscribed to the tax document--a presumption in both civil and criminal cases. Worse yet, the legislative history of this provision, in both the House and Senate bills, is silent as to the minimum standards for authentication technologies that can be adopted by the IRS as well as to the evidentiary burden which must be overcome by taxpayers who allege that they have been victims of identity theft. What, in fact, is the IRS planning to use for authentication of electronic tax documents? Their plans are public, and they consist of issuing a PIN number to taxpayers and relying on that as the primary means of electronic authentication through the year 2007. A PIN number is not generally recognized as an electronic or digital signature for electronic commerce purposes, and it is certainly not secure or reliable. The Finance Committee recently held hearings on the plight of innocent spouses, many of whom were caught up in tax disputes when their spouse forged their name on a fraudulent tax return. This provision would make it easier for such a fraud to be perpetrated in the future, as the malicious spouse would simply have to type their marriage partner's PIN number on an electronic return rather than forge their signature on paper. And the victimized spouse would be worse off, because they would have to overcome an evidentiary presumption which does not exist for an ink signature. This presumption is dangerous. We have not only failed to require that the IRS utilize only secure and reliable authentication methodologies, but we have also given it carte blanche to determine what burden a taxpayer must bear to overcome this evidentiary hurdle. This is completely at odds with other provisions of the bill which seek to alter the burden of proof in tax disputes in favor of taxpayers. It has been observed that proving a negative can be an impossible task. Yet this provision would let the IRS require taxpayers to somehow prove that they did not place their PIN number, not a digital signature, on a tax document which they may well have never seen. Striking this presumption will in no way diminish the ability of the IRS to rapidly implement an all-electronic tax system. It will simply compel the IRS to choose secure and reliable authentication technologies and associated procedures for signing tax documents which create strong evidence of identify and intent. Electronic signatures do not require any assist from an evidentiary presumption to meet the legal requirements of a binding signature. To the contrary, electronic and digital signature technologies are already available which provide better evidence than an ink signature on paper. Further, these technologies not only provide superior authentication, but they also accomplish something that no pen on ink signature can--they provide irrefutable evidence as to non-repudiation by demonstrating that not a single word on a document has been altered, added, or deleted since the time it was signed. With such technologies readily available at reasonable cost, why should we permit the use of insecure and unreliable methodologies coupled to an anti-taxpayer presumption? After striking this presumption an electronic tax document will still have the same legal standing as a paper document. It will still constitute prima facie evidence as an authentic and reliable writing. But, if questions arise regarding the genuineness of an electronic signature, or under the current IRS plan a mere PIN number, and the intent with which it was attached, they will be resolved on the basis of the available evidence and will not be prejudged by a presumption against a taxpayer. This amendment is already supported by several groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, Eagle Forum, Citizen's For A Sound Economy, National Taxpayer's Union, the Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Concerned Taxpayers, Black America's PAC, Citizens Against Higher Taxes, Regulatory Policy Center, and the Seniors Coalition. These are groups that have had the vision to look to the future of electronic commerce and electronic interaction with our government and have seen that bad precedent now will severely damage efforts in the future. I also want to thank Senator Leahy and his staff for their quick response and solid work on this important provision. This may seem like an esoteric issue. It is an evidentiary concern within a tax bill regarding procedures and technologies with which most of us are not yet very familiar. But a massive shift to electronic commerce, transactions, authentication and evidence is underway which will soon revolutionize the manner in which the public and private sectors conduct their business. That is why it is so important that we take the correct first steps. I urge my colleagues to join me and act to delete this dangerous presumption from the IRS bill. This legislation will only fulfill our goal of enhancing taxpayer rights if we adopt the principle that those rights should be identical regardless of whether taxpayers file physical or virtual documents. I want to especially thank the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his involvement in these issues and his sensitivity to the need to have a forward-looking, future-oriented policy expressed towards electronics, electronic data transmission, the filing electronically of tax returns. I personally thank Senator Burns of Montana, who has asked that he be added as an original cosponsor of the Ashcroft-Leahy amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burns be included as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan for having accepted the Leahy-Ashcroft amendment which will provide electronic access to the IRS information on the Internet. This amendment will require the IRS to maintain its web site with current forms, instructions and publications so people anywhere with access to the Internet can have access to those forms. To allow the public to have easy, efficient electronic access to all the IRS information that may be needed to adequately prepare a tax filing is a real benefit to the people, and I thank Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan for accepting the Leahy-Ashcroft amendment which will provide electronic access to the IRS information on the Internet. And I thank Senator Leahy for his involvement in that measure. Mr. President, I am pleased that the bipartisan amendment introduced by Senator Leahy and me has been adopted into the current legislation. This amendment will give individuals the ability to access a great deal of material from the IRS. Revenue rulings, treasury regulations, internal revenue bulletins, and IRS general counsel memorandum are just a few of the documents that will routinely be made available in an easy to use format. This information should provide for an easier and more understandable approach to tax planning and preparation. Individuals will be able to see rulings that may be similar to a situation they are in currently and plan accordingly. A central idea that I have carried from the time I was elected as a U.S. Senator was that the federal government be open and accessible to the public. I spent time traveling around Missouri, and visited every county, to demonstrate to students how they could access information about the federal government through my website. To rural and urban areas the power of the Internet is tremendous--so much that was far from reach is now accessible. This amendment moves IRS information closer to the public in an orderly educational way. As has been mentioned here, the tax code has become increasingly complex and onerous. My wife is a tax attorney, she even teaches tax law at Howard University, and we do not even prepare our own tax forms. My hope is that this modest effort will provide the public with timely, reliable information that may assist in their efforts to prepare their taxes. The effort is clearly a first step, that along with the rest of the provisions of this piece of legislation should provide the taxpayer with much more protection than they currently enjoy. Again, I thank the Finance Committee for its work, and Senator Leahy for his advocacy on this issue. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to send an amendment to the desk for consideration.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: 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 Pat and Don Redding of Kansas City, Missouri, who on May 23, 1998, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Redding's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I am introducing three bills: No. 1, The Protect Our Children Act. This legislation substantially increases the penalties on adults who distribute drugs to minors, who sell drugs in or near schools, and who use minors to distribute drugs. Each of these crimes currently carries a 1-year mandatory minimum sentence. My legislation would raise the mandatory term for each of these crimes to 3 years. The legislation also makes it a crime for an adult to use a minor to commit a violent crime. Adults found guilty of using a minor would be subject to two times the maximum imprisonment and two times the maximum fine for the violent crime itself. We need to make it especially costly for adults who decide to use minors to commit crimes, because they think they can avoid the penalty themselves and because they believe that the minor might not have a substantial liability for punishment. The second bill which I am introducing is the Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty Enhancement Act. Meth production and trafficking are enormous problems across America, particularly in my home State of Missouri. The Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty Enhancement Act equalizes penalties for crack cocaine and meth trafficking by setting a 5-year mandatory term for 5 grams of methamphetamine and a 10-year mandatory sentence for 50 grams. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the texts of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Drug Czar Responsibility and Accountability Act. It adds to the responsibilities of the drug czar's office the establishment of Federal policies, goals and performance measures, including specific reduction targets. Why is such a measure needed? Consider this: Overall illicit drug use among children age 12 to 17 was 5.3 percent when the President took office. In 1996, it was 9 percent. That is an increase of 70 percent since 1993. Now, the President proposes to cut drug use by 20 percent by the year 2002. In other words, 2 years after the President wants to leave office, he hopes to get teen drug use to only 128 percent of where it was when he took office. I happen to have been a Boy Scout. I think most of us in the Chamber have had some association with scouting. We either hauled kids to the campfires, to the Brownies, or to the Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts. The fundamental principle of scouting is you always leave the campground a little better than you found it. Here we have a President who, in terms of teen drug use, wants to set as a goal that there will be 128 percent of the drug use that there was when he came into office, and that goal isn't even supposed to be attained until 2 years after he leaves office. I don't think we will ever achieve greatness in our culture if we don't at least aspire to good things. Our opportunity is to leave the campground better than we found it, not worse than we found it, and certainly not 128 percent worse than we found it. We cannot defer maintenance of the campground until after we are gone. The tradition of America is to provide to the next generation a broader set of opportunities, a brighter set of horizons than we have ever known before. That should not be forgotten when we talk about curtailing the scourge of drugs on our young people. Here we have a President who wants to instruct a drug czar to ratchet the drug problem all the way back to 128 percent of what it was when he started and not to get that done until 2 years after he leaves office. I think it is disgraceful. Mr. President, because of my concern for combating underage drug use, I will also offer an amendment to the tobacco bill when it comes to the Senate floor to make certain the epidemic of underage illegal drug use is addressed in that respect. My amendment will allow States to use tobacco settlement funds for anti-illegal drug and law enforcement purposes, not just teen smoking programs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Ashcroft pertaining to the introduction of S. 2023 and S. 2028 located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Ohio, and the Senator from Georgia in allowing me to make these statements and introduce these matters. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have an opportunity to speak as in morning business for up to 6 minutes, until 11 o'clock.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask that the measure be voted on at this time.

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

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

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for providing me with this opportunity. I commend both the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Ohio for their outstanding work, along with other members of the committee. I know they worked hard in this particular endeavor. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to make certain that this legislation, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act, and the 1994 School-to-Work law are and remain separate programs. The amendment simply states that none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to carry out activities authorized under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has emphasized that School-to-Work is a completely separate program that is no way part of or linked to S. 1186. Section 316(d)(2) of the bill states: Funds shall not be used to carry out activities that duplicate federally funded activities available to youth. The committee has cited this section as prohibiting any localities from using S. 1168 funding to expand School-to-Work. Although Section 316 may be clear to legislative counsel and to those of us inside the beltway, there are still concerns about the misuse of adult job training funds for School-to-Work activities. My amendment clarifies in an unambiguous manner that the funds in this bill cannot be used to carry out School-to-Work activities. Many concerned citizens are troubled by the possibility that adult job training programs and even vocational education programs will be linked to elementary and secondary education and the School-to-Work Program. The concern is that this bill and the system it sets up would be linked to the School-to-Work system. I share these concerns. This amendment makes it clear to all involved, including those at the State level who will implement this law, that School-to-Work and adult job training are two distinct programs. The population that this legislation is aimed to help is different from the population served by the School-to-Work Act. They have different needs and different focuses, and this bill should make clear that they are to remain separate. My hope in offering this amendment is to ensure the two programs remain separate and the funds made available under this bill are not used to supplement the School-to-Work Act or to link School-to-Work activities with the Workforce Investment Partnership Act activities. No matter how one feels about School-to-Work, and there are some who oppose it and some who support it, you should support this amendment. This amendment does not affect the School-to-Work law in any way, other than to reaffirm the separate nature of the Workforce Investment Partnership Act from the School-to-Work Program. The Labor and Human Resources Committee is supportive of this amendment because it further clarifies what they understand the bill to do. In fact, the committee has repeatedly responded to the concerns about this issue by stating: School-to-Work is a completely separate program that is no way part of or linked to S. 1186. This amendment seeks to reassure those who are troubled by the possible linking of adult job training system to the School-to-Work Program. But more than that, the purpose of this amendment is to keep these two programs separate, not just rhetorically but in reality and in actuality. I thank the chairman for his support of this important amendment. It is my understanding the amendment is acceptable to both sides and is consistent with the understanding of the committee generally. I offer it and urge its adoption. Mr. Jeffords addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin Ring of my staff be permitted to be on the Senate floor today until adjournment, for the purposes of these discussions.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I am introducing three bills: No. 1, The Protect Our Children Act. This legislation substantially increases the penalties on adults who distribute drugs to minors, who sell drugs in or near schools, and who use minors to distribute drugs. Each of these crimes currently carries a 1-year mandatory minimum sentence. My legislation would raise the mandatory term for each of these crimes to 3 years. The legislation also makes it a crime for an adult to use a minor to commit a violent crime. Adults found guilty of using a minor would be subject to two times the maximum imprisonment and two times the maximum fine for the violent crime itself. We need to make it especially costly for adults who decide to use minors to commit crimes, because they think they can avoid the penalty themselves and because they believe that the minor might not have a substantial liability for punishment. The second bill which I am introducing is the Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty Enhancement Act. Meth production and trafficking are enormous problems across America, particularly in my home State of Missouri. The Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty Enhancement Act equalizes penalties for crack cocaine and meth trafficking by setting a 5-year mandatory term for 5 grams of methamphetamine and a 10-year mandatory sentence for 50 grams. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the texts of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Drug Czar Responsibility and Accountability Act. It adds to the responsibilities of the drug czar's office the establishment of Federal policies, goals and performance measures, including specific reduction targets. Why is such a measure needed? Consider this: Overall illicit drug use among children age 12 to 17 was 5.3 percent when the President took office. In 1996, it was 9 percent. That is an increase of 70 percent since 1993. Now, the President proposes to cut drug use by 20 percent by the year 2002. In other words, 2 years after the President wants to leave office, he hopes to get teen drug use to only 128 percent of where it was when he took office. I happen to have been a Boy Scout. I think most of us in the Chamber have had some association with scouting. We either hauled kids to the campfires, to the Brownies, or to the Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts. The fundamental principle of scouting is you always leave the campground a little better than you found it. Here we have a President who, in terms of teen drug use, wants to set as a goal that there will be 128 percent of the drug use that there was when he came into office, and that goal isn't even supposed to be attained until 2 years after he leaves office. I don't think we will ever achieve greatness in our culture if we don't at least aspire to good things. Our opportunity is to leave the campground better than we found it, not worse than we found it, and certainly not 128 percent worse than we found it. We cannot defer maintenance of the campground until after we are gone. The tradition of America is to provide to the next generation a broader set of opportunities, a brighter set of horizons than we have ever known before. That should not be forgotten when we talk about curtailing the scourge of drugs on our young people. Here we have a President who wants to instruct a drug czar to ratchet the drug problem all the way back to 128 percent of what it was when he started and not to get that done until 2 years after he leaves office. I think it is disgraceful. Mr. President, because of my concern for combating underage drug use, I will also offer an amendment to the tobacco bill when it comes to the Senate floor to make certain the epidemic of underage illegal drug use is addressed in that respect. My amendment will allow States to use tobacco settlement funds for anti-illegal drug and law enforcement purposes, not just teen smoking programs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.