Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act of 2000. I am pleased that my friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, joins me in introducing this important legislation. The Utah Enabling Act of 1894 granted to the state four sections, each section approximately 640 acres in size, in each 36 square-mile township. These lands were granted for the support of the public schools, and accordingly are referred to as school trust lands. The location of these lands, as they are not contiguous to each other, has made management by the state difficult. In addition, as school trust lands are interspersed with Federal lands, Federal land designations, such as wilderness study area, have further complicated the state's ability to manage its lands. The Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act of 2000 seeks to resolve these problems through an equal-value, equal-acreage land exchange between the state of Utah and the Federal Government. The lands that will be exchanged are located within the West Desert region of Utah. Each party will exchange approximately 106,000 acres. The Federal government will receive state lands located within wilderness study areas, lands identified as having wilderness characteristics in the Bureau of Land Management's Utah Wilderness Inventory, and lands identified for acquisition in the Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan. The state will receive federal lands that are more appropriate to carry out its mandate to generate revenue for Utah's public schools. I would like to address two issues some have raised about this land exchange. The first issue is regarding land valuation. Both the state of Utah and the Department of the Interior firmly believe that this exchange is approximately equivalent in value. The parties have reached this conclusion after many months of thorough research and evaluation of the parcels to be exchanged. The process of research and evaluation included review of comparable sales, mineral potential, access, and topography. One may ask why each parcel of land was not appraised individually. The answer is that for many of the 175 state parcels it would have cost more to have appraised those lands than their agreed upon value. Please note that the average value of the school trust lands outside of Washington County is $85 per-acre; if each individual parcel was required to be formally appraised the high appraisal costs would place this land exchange, and all of its benefits, in jeopardy. Nevertheless both the state of Utah and the Department of the Interior have maintained their fiduciary responsibility by putting together a package that is equal, in both value and acreage. The second issue that has been raised is in regard to the LaVerkin tract. Governor Leavitt, in his testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Resources, stated: ``I want to assure you the state of Utah will be sensitive to local needs as this tract is developed, and will comply with, and participate in, local planning and zoning decisions. Also, you can be assured the scenic views at the entrance to Zion National Park will be protected to the maximum extent practicable,'' It is my hope that this commitment made by Governor Levitt will satisfy those concerned by the exchange of the LaVerkin tract. The Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act of 2000 is the result of over 12 months of negotiations between the state of Utah and the Department of the Interior. For too long the school trust lands in the West Desert have been held captive by neighboring federal lands, unable to produce the revenue that are legally required to for Utah's schools. This bill provides that Congress with an opportunity to reduce the state of Utah's holdings in Federal wilderness study areas and other sensitive areas while increasing lands that are more suitable for long-term economic development to the state of Utah for its school children. Additionally, the Federal Government will consolidate its ownership in the existing wilderness study area, which will allow for more consistent management. This bill is a win-win proposal, and the right thing to do. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation in the remaining months of the session.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to praise the hard work, commitment and diligence of Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. He navigated truly treacherous legislative and political waters to bring this legislation to shore. Were it not for his steadfast guidance of this legislation, there would be no E-Sign bill before us today. From the outset, Senator Abraham had the vision and initiative to call to life a law which will allow American consumers and businesses to do transactions over the Internet with a greater confidence in their legal rights and responsibilities. And let me say this to my colleague, Senator Abraham, this bill is much like the Internet in that almost instantaneously all kinds of people will come out of the woodwork to claim credit for your great achievement. Savor it, because those of us who worked by your side know well that the credit lies with you. Throughout the conference I kept one goal in mind. We must make every effort to have a digital signature be equal to a paper signature both in the ease of use and in the eyes of the law. And while we did not fully succeed in that regard, this legislation is clearly a worthwhile step in the right direction and I intend to support its passage. Mr. President, let me take one more moment to express, generally, some of my concerns about provisions that were added in the name of providing greater consumer protection and which were outside of the scope of the bills passed in the House and the Senate. I fear that the lack of clarity of several terms and phrases which were added in the conference and which are strewn throughout the bill will create the opportunity for misunderstandings and lawsuits. Greater consultation among the conferees could have resolved these issues, because I know that we all share the same hopes for the success of this legislation. I sincerely hope that my concerns about the use of these terms is misplaced and that they will not come back to haunt us. Finally, Mr. President, pursuant to the Government Paperwork Elimination Act passed by the previous Congress, the Office of Management and Budget has adopted regulations to permit individuals to obtain, submit and sign government forms electronically. These regulations direct Federal agencies to recognize that different security approaches offer varying levels of assurance in an electronic environment and that deciding which to use in an application depends first upon finding a balance between the risks associated with the loss, misuse or compromise of the information, and the benefits, costs and effort associated with deploying and managing the increasingly secure methods to mitigate those risks. The OMB regulations recognize that among the various technical approaches, in an ascending level of assurance, are (1) ``shared secrets'' methods (e.g., personal identification numbers or passwords), (2) digitized signatures or biometric means of identification, such as fingerprints, retinal patterns and voice recognition, and (3) cryptographic digital signatures, which provide the greatest assurance. Combinations of approaches (e.g., digital signatures with bio-metrics) are also possible and may provide even higher levels of assurance. The technical competence and experience of the service provider should be of paramount concern as we step into this brave new world. A positive first step in this regard is the General Services Administration's development of the ACES, or Access Certification for Electronic Services, Program for all federal agencies. Mr. President, in developing this legislation, we recognized that certain technologies are more secure than others and that consumers and businesses must, just as the government, select and weigh which technology is most appropriate for their particular needs taking into account the importance of the transaction and its corresponding need for assurance.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10:40 a.m. Senator Reid of Nevada be recognized to call up amendment No. 3292 regarding computers and, following that debate, Senator Boxer be recognized to call up a filed amendment regarding medical privacy.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 13. I further ask that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators speaking up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or his designee, for 30 minutes, and Senator Thomas, or his designee, for 15 minutes.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Boxer amendment occur at 2:20, with 4 minutes equally divided for closing remarks.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow and be in a period of morning business until 10:30. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 4576, the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Under the order, a Reid and Boxer amendment will be called up, with votes expected to occur following the 2:20 vote. In addition, consent has been granted for a rollcall to occur at 2:20. Therefore, the first vote will be at approximately 2:20 tomorrow. As a reminder, all first-degree amendments were filed today. Senators should be aware that action on this legislation is expected to be completed by tomorrow night. Therefore, those Senators who have filed amendments should work with the managers of the bill on a time to offer those amendments as soon as possible.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 321, introduced earlier today by Senators Lautenberg and Torricelli.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Schumer. I wanted to thank my colleague and his staff for their hard work and full partnership in arriving at what I believe is a critical first step to insuring this nation's security in a world of growing cyber threats. I have been concerned for some time now that Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD 63) does not clearly define a role for the Department of Defense (DOD). In one sentence, PDD 63 states that the DOD is assigned the role of ``defense'' but does not elaborate on how it will accomplish this vague assignment. Our legislation will require that the DOD begin the thinking process of how it is integrating its different capabilities and assets into an ``indications and warning architecture.'' Each of the Services is developing its individual information warfare capabilities at this moment, and it is not clear how they are being integrated or coordinated. The DOD was supposed to report on the future of the National Communications System (NCS) in 1996 and 1997, but as far as I know that report was never completed. NCS has been identified as a unique public-private partnership with major telephone carriers and information systems providers and could be a useful entity to defend against a widespread attack. This bill will require the DOD to describe how it is working with the intelligence community to identify, detect and counter the threat of information warfare programs of hostile states and potentially hostile sub-national organizations. One thing my Y2K experience has made very clear to me is that the coordination of intelligence and the proper identification of threat and intention is increasingly difficult. We often lack the human intelligence, just plain people on the ground, to meet the growing need for reconnaissance, and that makes coordinated and integrated technology all the more important. We must begin to work from a position of having a consistent understanding of the terms we use. It is central to this idea that we define the terms: nationally ``significant cyber event'' and ``cyber reconstitution.'' PDD 63 and the National Plan do not define what these are and the lack of definition causes confusion and impedes program development. Also, during Y2K we found that the DOD has a large dependency on foreign infrastructure and that we must develop a way to assure and defend that infrastructure electronically. Any collapse of an infrastructure would hurt our force projection capabilities. Our offensive and defensive information operations need to evolve together in an integrated fashion. We need to identify elements of a defense against an information warfare attack, including how the capability of the U.S. Space Command's Computer Network Attack Capability will be integrated into the overall cyber defense of the U.S. Mr. President, in closing I cannot overemphasis my concern for a thoughtful approach to cyber-defense. As many of us have become painfully aware, the threats are increasing at unheard of rates and our defenses, even in the government, have not kept pace. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for raising this issue because it is a very legitimate issue, and I think it is a legitimate issue for the legislative branch subcommittee to deal with. We did not deal with it in subcommittee and in full committee. It becomes a challenge to try to find the money right now in terms of an offset within the bill. The point the Senator from Pennsylvania makes is an extremely valid one. There are people who, in rural areas particularly, do not really have any sense of opportunity to interact with a Senator unless that Senator physically goes to those counties. Then when you try to notify the people that you are coming, you have a real challenge because they do not have the mass media coverage. Yes, they may get a major newspaper from a major metropolitan area, but they do not read it for hometown announcements. If you try local newspapers, many times they do not do the job, either. The problem we have in terms of the reactions from members of the Rules Committee is that the Rules Committee has attempted to create the opportunity for this in terms of flexibility for the overall budget and saying to a Senator, ``You have a pot of money you can use either for franking or for stationery, for travel, or some other item,'' and they are opposed to earmarking a particular amount of money for this particular purpose. If we sit down with members of the Rules Committee and lay out the importance of what it is the Senator from Pennsylvania is highlighting and talk it through to find some creative way, I think we can move in that direction. I pledge to the Senator from Pennsylvania that I will work with him to see if we cannot do that because I agree absolutely with the end he is trying to achieve. I think it is very important that we try to help Members communicate with their constituents in a meaningful kind of way. As I understand it, from the Senator from Pennsylvania, this is not talking about a mass mailing of campaign literature, as we are accused of doing under newsletters and use of the franking. This is talking about simply a notice that would go out under the frank with respect to town meetings. I am very sympathetic with that and would be happy to work with the Senator and the Senators from the Rules Committee and, of course, Senator Feinstein, to see if we can't find a way to devise something that is not overly expensive--because I agree with the Senator, not every Senator would want to use it--but that at the same time we could provide an opportunity for those Senators who would be willing to do the town meeting. So I am happy to deal with the Senator to see if we can't find way to work this out.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I think, as I said, he has raised an issue very much worth pursuing and one that we will, in all good faith, go forward on, to see if we can't work out some kind of solution that can get us where it is we need to be.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on S. 2163, a bill to provide for a study of the engineering feasibility of a water exchange in lieu of electrification of the Chandler Pumping Plant at Prosser Diversion Dam, Washington; S. 2396, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Utah, to use Water Basin Project facilities for the impounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial purposes; S. 2248, a bill to assist in the development and implementation of projects to provide for the control of drainage water, storm water, flood water, and other water as part of water-related integrated resource management, environmental infrastructure, and resource protection, and development projects in the Colusa Basin Watershed, California; S. 2410, a bill to increase the authorization of appropriations for the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, and for other purposes; and S. 2425, a bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the planning, design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, Oregon, and for other purposes.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no other amendments be in order to the bill. I further ask consent that following the vote in relation to the Mikulski amendment, the bill be advanced to third reading, a vote occur on the question of third reading, and following that vote, the bill be placed back on the calendar. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the previous agreement be modified to allow for those two back-to-back votes to begin at 10:45 on Thursday morning, with the same 10 minutes in order prior to the 10:45 a.m. vote.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the memorandum of which I spoke be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Vermont for bringing this issue to my attention. Like him, members of my staff have also had their children enrolled in the Little Scholars Center and speak highly of the staff and quality of the care there. In this competitive job market, it is very important that Legislative Branch child care centers be able to attract and retain quality staff. I share the Senator from Vermont's goal that health and retirement benefits are extended to employees of the Library of Congress' child care center as soon as possible. I inform Senator Jeffords that I have received a copy of a memo, dated May 24, from Teresa Smith, Director of the Library's Human Resource Services, to John D. Webster, Director of the Library's Financial Services, committing to working out a fair and equitable agreement on the issue of extending benefits to employees of the center with the governing board of the child care center. Rest assured, my staff and I will be monitoring the Library's progress towards this goal with the intent that this issue be resolved before the beginning of the next fiscal year.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we come to the time where we have another 25 minutes before the time comes for voting. I had been expecting the Senator from Alaska. He is still tied up in a previous meeting. So we will look forward to hearing from him. It has been an interesting experience for me to serve as chairman of this particular subcommittee on Appropriations. There are those who say this subcommittee does not matter very much because its dollar allocation is the lowest of all of the subcommittees in the Appropriations Committee, with the exception of the District of Columbia. I disagree. I think this subcommittee, in fact, can have as much impact on the Government as some of the others that have greater amounts of money to spend because of its area of jurisdiction. I will take a little of the time here to express my gratitude for the opportunity of chairing this subcommittee and for those with whom we work. The subcommittee deals with the Architect of the Capitol. That is a term that most people in the country do not understand. They would think of the Architect of the Capitol as the person who sits down and draws the lines on paper that produces the building of the Capitol. That is what architects do. They do not realize that the Architect of the Capitol is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the Capitol. In this situation, I have been able to go around and meet those people who oversee the activities that go on with respect to maintaining our operation. They work for the Architect of the Capitol, and they are concerned with such things as the air-conditioning, the cleaning, the repairs, the restoration of the Brumidi paintings about which the Senator from West Virginia spoke. We take it for granted that this beautiful place will always remain beautiful. It takes a virtual army of people working behind the scenes to see that this is, in fact, the case. I have spoken of my business experience. I remember one company where I worked where a particular manager was under very heavy pressure from top management to show improved results on the bottom line. This manager was determined to do that. Pretty soon the reports started coming in that the bottom line was getting better and getting better, and he basked in the glow of the approval that he got for his tough measures and his great turnaround procedures. Then the bill came due, and we discovered what he had been doing. He had been increasing his bottom line by cutting back on his maintenance budget. And all of a sudden the facilities over which he had responsibility began to show the deterioration. In that company, we ultimately had to pay enormous capital costs to restore the facilities to the level they should have been at by virtue of significant day-to- day maintenance. Yes, he could make the bottom line look better temporarily by shutting down the day-to-day maintenance, but, overall, he cost us a great deal of money. That is the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol: To see to it that, overall, this entire complex works. It is not only the Capitol. He has the responsibility for the Senate office buildings and the House office buildings. We have watched the renovation of the Dirksen Office Building go forward under the direction of the Architect of the Capitol. I am happy to be able to report that it is on time and under budget. For those who say that every Federal program is a boondoggle, this is one that is moving forward. As an occupant of a Dirksen Building suite in the renovated area, I can tell you that this office space will be good for the next 30 or 40 years before it has to be done again. It is being done properly, it is being done intelligently, and it is being done within the allocated budget. Something that I did not know anything about until I became chairman of this subcommittee is the Botanic Garden. I have all my life driven by the Botanic Gardens without ever going in and without ever having any understanding of what went on inside. The Architect of the Capitol came to me when I got this assignment and said: Let's go down and take a look at the Botanic Gardens. Well, one walk through the Botanic Gardens made it clear that there had been a lot of delay and neglect of ordinary maintenance. This was a major mess. Now, under the direction of the Architect of the Capitol, the Botanic Gardens are being raised up to the level where they should be. One may ask: Who cares about the Botanic Gardens? I asked the somewhat impudent question: How many Americans come to the Botanic Gardens? How many see this? Well, if it were in a city other than Washington, DC, it would be a major tourist attraction. There are literally millions of Americans who go through the Botanic Gardens every year. It had been allowed to deteriorate and had to be brought up to proper standards. I could go on and on about the work of the Architect of the Capitol. It is significant work, and it requires a great deal of effort. I am delighted to be involved in understanding that. I see other Members coming to the floor. I want them to know I am not filibustering, but I don't want the time to go just in a quorum call, when I have an opportunity to express my gratitude for the assignment that I have. If anyone has something they want to say, just give me a signal and I will conclude quickly. Absent that, I will talk about the Library of Congress. The Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson building is one of the hidden jewels, architecturally, in this town. I always tell tourists from Utah, when they come and visit me in my office, to go see the Jefferson building. They say: Well, we are going to go see the major sites. We are going to go to the Vietnam War Memorial. We are going to go to the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial and the new FDR Memorial, and so on. I only have so much time. I say: I don't care how limited your time is. If you have any time at all, walk down the street and walk into the Jefferson building. This is the most beautiful building on Capitol Hill except for the Capitol itself. It represents in many ways the story of America. My favorite story about the Library of Congress and the building is one that is told about Boris Yeltsin, when he walked into the Jefferson building. He stood there and looked around, and then turned to his guide and said: How did you Americans get a building like this? You didn't have any czars? Well, maybe we didn't have any czars, but we had the Army Corps of Engineers, and we had the American spirit 100 years ago that said America has arrived. America is going to take its place as one of the major nations of the world. In that spirit of enthusiasm and excitement, they built the Jefferson building to house the Library of Congress. That building came in under budget and on time. It stands as a reminder of the spirit of manifest destiny that we associate with Theodore Roosevelt. The building was finished before Theodore Roosevelt became President, but it was in that era that it happened. That is a reminder that all Americans ought to have as part of their history. It has been magnificently restored by the Congress, and by this subcommittee. Admittedly, it was restored prior to my being involved with the subcommittee, but it is something we in Congress should be proud of because it is part of the heritage we leave to our children and our grandchildren. They can come to Capitol Hill--yes, the Capitol and the continuity of democracy that is represented here--but there is also the commitment to knowledge and spreading that knowledge that is represented by the largest and finest library in the world. It exists to serve the Congress. It is sustained by the Congress. It is part of the responsibility of this particular subcommittee. I am delighted with the opportunity of serving in this capacity. I appreciate the support we have received not only from the full committee but from all of the Members of the Senate as well. I see my friend from Connecticut is here. I am happy to yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send to the desk a managers' package of four amendments and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senators who have spoken in such generous terms. It helps to have a bill that is relatively noncontroversial and to be on the side of the issues where most Senators are to get those glowing terms, but nonetheless, I am grateful for them. I appreciate the comments. Amendment Nos. 3167 through 3170, En Bloc

Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I amend the Senator's unanimous-consent request that the vote on the pending amendment occur at 9:45 on Thursday with no amendments in order to the amendment, and that there be 10 minutes of remarks prior to the vote.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that Executive Calendar No. 454 be added to the list of nominations to be confirmed following the votes on the FEC and judicial nominations.