Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 421, H.J. Res. 113, a joint resolution approving the location of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in the Nation's Capital, that the joint resolution be considered read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the preamble be agreed to with the above occurring without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the minority leader, may proceed to the consideration of Calendar 218, S. 1092, regarding Cold Bay and King Cove. I further ask consent that total debate time be limited to 6 hours equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member. I further ask that the only amendments in order be the following: two relevant amendments offered by Senator Bumpers; one relevant amendment offered by Senator Murkowski. I further ask consent that no second-degree amendments be in order, and that following expiration of the time and disposition of any pending amendments, the bill be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that on Friday, June 26, it be in order for the majority leader, after consultation with the minority leader, to proceed to executive session for the consideration of the nomination of executive calendar No. 574, the nomination of A. Howard Matz, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California. I further ask consent that at that time the Senate proceed immediately to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, and that immediately following that vote, the Senate proceed to a vote on the nomination of executive calendar No. 621, Victoria A. Roberts, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. I further ask consent that following the votes, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What business are we in?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that be laid aside.

Mr. BURNS. I appreciate the suggestion of the manager of the bill. I will do that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to congratulate Mr. Don Peoples, Sr. of Butte, Montana for being recognized as the 1998 recipient of the Distinguished Leadership Award by the Montana Tech Foundation. I have known Don for many years and his commitment to the city of Butte is certainly a reflection of his love for the All-America City! While serving as Butte's Chief Executive, Don lead a team of dedicated folks that revived Butte's economy after the loss of a major mining company in 1982. After serving ten years in that role, Don left local government to become a leading voice for the private sector. Today, he is President and Chief Executive Officer of MSE, Inc. MSE is now one of Butte's top employers. His company is currently working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on a variety of projects that will help launch the next generation space shuttle and other research projects. The United States Defense Department is also working with MSE to develop technologies for use in pollution control and cleanup. The company is also researching new methods for heavy metal and mine waste remediation projects. I believe that because of Don's tenacity, this kind of cutting edge technology is being tested in Butte, Montana. I also applaud Don's commitment to many other organizations and committees in the mining city. He continues to make a difference through his affiliations with the United Way, Carroll College, St. James Community Hospital, Butte Central Schools, and so many other worthwhile causes. I must also acknowledge Don's wife Cathy and their four grown children--Don, Jr., Tracey, Doug, and Kevin--as they celebrate this honor. I am convinced that their love and support have helped Don achieve so many goals throughout the years. I always say Montanans have very special qualities. Mr. Don Peoples, Sr. is truly a special Montanan and for that I congratulate him.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank Senator Domenici for his recognition of this problem. I will fully commit myself to working with him to resolve this situation as soon as possible.

Mr. BURNS. This is especially true considering the recent drought and low wheat prices that we have been experiencing throughout the region. The farmers in this region simply cannot afford the burden that this rate increase will place on them.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I understand that the Western Area Power Administration and The Bureau of Reclamation are considering raising rates for the power necessary to operate irrigation systems in the Eastern Division of the Pick-Sloane Missouri Basin Project. The purpose of these agencies is not to raise revenue. Rather, these agencies are designed to provide reliable and affordable power for multi-purpose economic development.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, to introduce the Water Conservation and Quality Incentives Act, a bill to revise the state revolving fund in the Clean Water Act. This is language that Senator Wyden and I have collaborated on to bring some sense of additional conservation of water resources to the many irrigation districts in the nation. In the west, irrigators are by far the largest water users. These are folks who need the water because of the various crops that they have on the ground in the states out west. Unfortunately a large portion of the water that is used in irrigation is by nature displaced due to seepage within the canals and ditches in which the water flows. Although the water is not lost, since it seeps into the soil and assists in the overall soil moisture, it is not immediately available to the irrigator. However, it is water which could be more effectively used to provide additional water to the producer. In most irrigation districts, irrigators pay for water that is released to them, and any displacement of this water does not help that producer on the bottom line. At a time when prices are low and markets are questionable, it is important that we give tools to the producer to make sure that they have every opportunity to stay in business. A key underlying feature of the legislation, is that the water saved under the proposal in this bill will not only assist the producer in water and cost savings, but also will assist the future of water in the many rivers and streams in the west. At a time when the federal government seems to be taking steps to reduce state involvement in water rights this is extremely important. The proposal put forth in this bill, will authorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to provide loans to irrigation districts to construct pipelines and develop additional conservation measures. The states would have an option in this measure, they would not have to involve their funds in this matter, but would allow them to do so if they so elected. In addition, those districts who did so elect to involve themselves would be able to add to their supply of water the difference between what they were using prior to the plan and what they were able to save. This bill creates a win/win situation both for water users and for the multiple users of water in our states, particularly Oregon and Montana. We have an opportunity here to do something useful and worthwhile for the irrigators and the fishing, boating and those who use instream water. I would like to thank Senator Wyden for his work on this measure and I am pleased to work with him today on this issue of great importance.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, to introduce the Water Conservation and Quality Incentives Act, a bill to revise the state revolving fund in the Clean Water Act. This is language that Senator Wyden and I have collaborated on to bring some sense of additional conservation of water resources to the many irrigation districts in the nation. In the west, irrigators are by far the largest water users. These are folks who need the water because of the various crops that they have on the ground in the states out west. Unfortunately a large portion of the water that is used in irrigation is by nature displaced due to seepage within the canals and ditches in which the water flows. Although the water is not lost, since it seeps into the soil and assists in the overall soil moisture, it is not immediately available to the irrigator. However, it is water which could be more effectively used to provide additional water to the producer. In most irrigation districts, irrigators pay for water that is released to them, and any displacement of this water does not help that producer on the bottom line. At a time when prices are low and markets are questionable, it is important that we give tools to the producer to make sure that they have every opportunity to stay in business. A key underlying feature of the legislation, is that the water saved under the proposal in this bill will not only assist the producer in water and cost savings, but also will assist the future of water in the many rivers and streams in the west. At a time when the federal government seems to be taking steps to reduce state involvement in water rights this is extremely important. The proposal put forth in this bill, will authorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to provide loans to irrigation districts to construct pipelines and develop additional conservation measures. The states would have an option in this measure, they would not have to involve their funds in this matter, but would allow them to do so if they so elected. In addition, those districts who did so elect to involve themselves would be able to add to their supply of water the difference between what they were using prior to the plan and what they were able to save. This bill creates a win/win situation both for water users and for the multiple users of water in our states, particularly Oregon and Montana. We have an opportunity here to do something useful and worthwhile for the irrigators and the fishing, boating and those who use instream water. I would like to thank Senator Wyden for his work on this measure and I am pleased to work with him today on this issue of great importance.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. We can readily see that the current U.S. policy on encryption jeopardizes the privacy of individuals, the security of the Internet, and the competitiveness of U.S. industry. We have been debating this issue since the Administration's introduction of the ill- fated Clipper chip proposal over five years ago. Yet no substantial change in Administration policy has taken place. It is time for us to take action. I first introduced comprehensive encryption reform legislation in the form of the Pro-CODE bill over two years ago, then reintroduced it in this Congress with the cosponsorship of the Majority Leader, Senators Ashcroft, Leahy, Wyden, and others. Along with Senators Ashcroft, Leahy, and others, I am also an original cosponsor of the E-PRIVACY bill, which would foster the use of strong encryption and global competitiveness. We have held numerous hearings on the issue. Yet despite the increasingly desperate drumbeat of criticism from industry, individuals, and privacy groups, from across the political spectrum, the Administration's policy has remained fundamentally unchanged.

Mr. BURNS. I would like to point out that the government's plan for encryption--whether they call it ``key escrow'' or ``key recovery'' or ``plaintext access''--simply won't work. Eleven of the world's most prominent computer security experts have told us government mandated key recovery won't work because it won't be secure, as explained in a study published this week by the Center for Democracy and Technology. Key escrow also won't work because it will cost billions, as revealed in a recent study published by the Business Software Alliance. We have also been told that the kind of system the Administration wants is not technically feasible. Additionally, constitutional scholars testified that government mandated key escrow, third party recovery probably violates the Bill of Rights.

Mr. BURNS. The Majority Leader is absolutely right. We do not need experts to tell us key recovery will not work. All that is needed is a little common sense to understand that no one will buy systems with backdoor access. Criminals will not escrow their keys and terrorists will find keyless systems from America's foreign competitors. There is nothing we can do to stop undesirables from using strong, unescrowed encryption.

Mr. BURNS. In the computer business these days, they talk about ``Internet time.'' In the Internet industry, where product life cycles can be as low as 6 months, the world changes rapidly. Yet we have been debating this issue for over five years now, while America's sensitive communications go unsecured, our critical information infrastructures go unprotected, and our electronic commerce jobs get shipped overseas. It is time for the Congress to act.

Mr. BURNS. The basic facts remain the same. People need strong, unescrowed encryption to protect themselves online in the information age. Law enforcement has legitimate concerns about the spread of this technology, and we must work to provide them the tools and expertise they need to keep up with advances in encryption technology. We cannot stop time, however. The genie is out of the bottle. As Bill Gates, the CEO of Microsoft, recently said, ``Encryption technology is widely available outside the United States and inside the United States, and that's just a fact of life.''

Mr. BURNS. As my colleagues recognize, technically advanced and unobtrusive encryption is fundamental to ensuring the kind of privacy Americans will need and desire in the years to come. Congress must choose a future where individuals and companies will have the tools they need to protect their privacy, not a future where people fear the use electronic commerce because they have no security. I commend the Majority Leader, Senators Ashcroft, Leahy, Craig, Wyden, and Murray for their vision and bipartisan leadership on this issue. I hope that Congress will be able to move forward with real encryption reform legislation that protects the privacy and security of Americans in the Information Age, before it is too late.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to honor Mrs. Grace Babcock of Helena, Montana. Grace will be 88 years young on July 29, 1998. She has the wonderful distinction of being the oldest state employee for my home state of Montana. I join Grace's family, friends, and co-workers in thanking her for a job well done! Grace was born on July 29, 1910 in Deer Lodge, Montana. She was one of nine children. Early on, here family moved to the Canton Valley outside of Townsend, Montana. She married Carter Babcock in 1930. They became the proud parents of two girls, Marilyn and Joyce. In 1941, the family moved to Helena. Although Carter died in 1970, Grace kept the family going. She now dots on her seven grandchildren and eight great- grandchildren. Grace worked for the accounting firm of Galusha, Higgins, & Galusha until her retirement in 1976. Then, in 1980, it was the beginning of here career with the State of Montana. Grace is certainly a role model not only for active seniors but also for so many young people across our state. She has been blessed with good health and uses her talents to help others. On behalf of all Montanans, I would like to congratulate you, Grace, for your help in making our state truly the ``last best place!'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am proud to announce that Semitool, Inc., of Kalispell, Montana, has been awarded the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 1998 Entrepreneurial Success Award. The state of Montana has rapidly entered the high-tech field in recent years, and Semitool illustrates the best of what can be done in our state. I nominated Semitool, which designs and manufactures equipment used in the production of semiconductors and other electronic devices, for the award last December because of their great success in the high-tech industry. As you may know, Mr. President, the SBA grants the Entrepreneurial Success Award to companies launched as ``small" businesses that received SBA assistance and have since grown. The criteria include growth in the number of employees, increase in sales, comparisons between current and past financial reports, innovativeness of product or service offered, and evidence of contributions to the local community. With good ideas, hard work, and an initial boost by the SBA, Semitool has become a major source for employment in Kalispell, employing roughly 1,100 people. It's this kind of entrepreneurial spirit that will keep Montana, and our nation, strong. Again, I congratulate Semitool on their success, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand before the chamber today in support of the e-Privacy Act because the very future of electronic commerce on the Internet is being held hostage to cold-war era export controls. These outdated regulations tie the hands of the U.S. high technology industry and pose a threat to privacy and security of all Americans who use the Internet. Despite some small concessions by the Administration, the competitive advantage of the U.S. high technology industries and the privacy and security of our citizens remain trapped by the Clinton Administration's outdated policy. The e-Privacy Act will relax current export controls on encryption technologies so that U.S. companies can effectively compete in the global marketplace. The bill will also prevent the government from mandating risky and expensive ``key-recovery'' or ``key-escrow'' encryption systems domestically. It's a good bill, it has broad support from the computer and communications industry, Internet users, and privacy advocates from both the left and right of the political spectrum. The Clinton Administration has expressed concerns about the impact the e-Privacy Act would have on the legitimate needs of law enforcement and national security. My colleagues and I do not take their concerns lightly. Several provisions in the e-Privacy Act address the Administration's valid concerns while at the same time freeing U.S. companies to effectively compete in the global marketplace, and ensuring that the American people can trust the Internet as a secure means of commerce, education, and free expression of ideas. The e-Privacy Act would create a National Electronic Technology Center (``NET Center'') to serve as a central point for information and assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities to address the technical difficulties of obtaining electronic information because of encryption. National security and law enforcement would be given seats at the table in making these determinations. Once again, I am very sensitive to the legitimate needs of national security and law enforcement, and I think the provisions made in the e-Privacy Act address them. The e-Privacy Act also extends to citizens that same privacy rights that they have in their homes to their digital property in cyberspace. The bill would require a court order or subpoena to obtain either the plaintext or decryption key from their parties. I believe that this is the correct approach. Citizens are also specifically given the right to use whatever kind of encryption software at whatever strength they choose. The bill recognizes the folly of requiring the government to create procedures to license ``key certificate authorities'' and ``key-recovery agents,'' as well as require the development of a massive and complicated infrastructure to ensure that the government could recover the right key out of the hundreds of millions of keys in real time. On many occasions, the world's leading cryptographers concluded that building such a key recovery infrastructure would be prohibitively expensive and would create a less secure network. The bill recognizes that mandatory key escrow will never work, no one will use it and certainly no criminals or other bad actors will use a system that is immediately accessible by the government. I urge my colleagues to support the e-Privacy Act, which I feel is the true compromise package. We all have the same goals in mind-- allowing for the continued growth of high tech industries while not harming national security. If we move forward with the compromise bill being offered today, I am confident we can do both.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand before the chamber today in support of the e-Privacy Act because the very future of electronic commerce on the Internet is being held hostage to cold-war era export controls. These outdated regulations tie the hands of the U.S. high technology industry and pose a threat to privacy and security of all Americans who use the Internet. Despite some small concessions by the Administration, the competitive advantage of the U.S. high technology industries and the privacy and security of our citizens remain trapped by the Clinton Administration's outdated policy. The e-Privacy Act will relax current export controls on encryption technologies so that U.S. companies can effectively compete in the global marketplace. The bill will also prevent the government from mandating risky and expensive ``key-recovery'' or ``key-escrow'' encryption systems domestically. It's a good bill, it has broad support from the computer and communications industry, Internet users, and privacy advocates from both the left and right of the political spectrum. The Clinton Administration has expressed concerns about the impact the e-Privacy Act would have on the legitimate needs of law enforcement and national security. My colleagues and I do not take their concerns lightly. Several provisions in the e-Privacy Act address the Administration's valid concerns while at the same time freeing U.S. companies to effectively compete in the global marketplace, and ensuring that the American people can trust the Internet as a secure means of commerce, education, and free expression of ideas. The e-Privacy Act would create a National Electronic Technology Center (``NET Center'') to serve as a central point for information and assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities to address the technical difficulties of obtaining electronic information because of encryption. National security and law enforcement would be given seats at the table in making these determinations. Once again, I am very sensitive to the legitimate needs of national security and law enforcement, and I think the provisions made in the e-Privacy Act address them. The e-Privacy Act also extends to citizens that same privacy rights that they have in their homes to their digital property in cyberspace. The bill would require a court order or subpoena to obtain either the plaintext or decryption key from their parties. I believe that this is the correct approach. Citizens are also specifically given the right to use whatever kind of encryption software at whatever strength they choose. The bill recognizes the folly of requiring the government to create procedures to license ``key certificate authorities'' and ``key-recovery agents,'' as well as require the development of a massive and complicated infrastructure to ensure that the government could recover the right key out of the hundreds of millions of keys in real time. On many occasions, the world's leading cryptographers concluded that building such a key recovery infrastructure would be prohibitively expensive and would create a less secure network. The bill recognizes that mandatory key escrow will never work, no one will use it and certainly no criminals or other bad actors will use a system that is immediately accessible by the government. I urge my colleagues to support the e-Privacy Act, which I feel is the true compromise package. We all have the same goals in mind-- allowing for the continued growth of high tech industries while not harming national security. If we move forward with the compromise bill being offered today, I am confident we can do both.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. On August 8, 1997, Ms. Linda G. Sundro, Inspector General for the National Science Foundation (NSF) recommended that NSF reduce their SBIR set-aside by approximately $2.5 million by excluding certain education and training costs, as well as program support overhead costs from their total extramural R&D budget. Although funded by the Congress as part of their overall R&D budget, the Inspector General concluded that these costs could be excluded because they do not fit the statutory definition of R&D as set forth in the Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act of 1992, (Public Law No. 102.564, 15 U.S.C. Part 638(e)(5)). The Inspector General's recommendation does not take into consideration the guidance provided by the Congress in determining the calculation. The legislation requires each agency ``which has an extramural budget for research or research and development'' (15 U.S.C. Part 638(f)(1)) to set-aside a percentage for the SBIR program. The legislation clearly defines extramural budget as ``the sum of the total obligations minus amounts obligated for such activities by employees of the agency in or through Government-owned, Government-operated facilities * * *'' (15 U.S.C. Part 638 (e)(1)). Under existing law, the only exclusion from the calculation is for funds dedicated to intramural R&D efforts. In its April 17, 1998 report on the SBIR program, the General Accounting Office identified the calculation of the extramural budget as an issue for the SBIR program. Their analysis found that each participating agency was utilizing different methodologies in the calculation. The GAO recommended that the SBA issue guidance to the participating agencies to ensure consistency across the program. The SBA agreed with this recommendation. Accordingly, I believe the NSF Inspector General's recommendation is inconsistent with the current law and would ask that the Director of the National Science Foundation hold the recommendation in abeyance until such time as the SBA issues guidance to the participating SBIR agencies.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the National Science Foundation (NSF) authorization bill, which is before us today. Prior to this Congress, when I became chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, I served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, which has jurisdiction over the authorizations for the NSF. I conducted several hearings on NSF during that time. I am also a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD Independent Agencies, which funds the NSF. As a result, I have had the opportunity to get to know this agency and its program as well. I will have to tell you that when I came to the U.S. Senate, I did not expect to become a champion for the National Science Foundation and for scientific research, education and technology. But, I quickly became a strong supporter. I have seen what this agency can do, and its importance to the people in our states. NSF is about seeking new scientific knowledge and using that knowledge. It is about helping the researchers and teachers in our colleges and universities and helping them to make certain that their students receive a good education, with scientific, mathematical, engineering and technological opportunities. It is about offering better training and materials for our K-12 teachers. And, it is about developing infrastructure, such as advanced telecommunication and computing opportunities. Such infrastructure is particularly important for rural states, such as Montana. NSF has funded research which led to Montana State University's Jack Horner's now famous work on dinosaurs. It has helped us start new program in computational biology. It has funded an Engineering Research Center, which has undertaken cutting edge research in networking connection and supported other networking and telecommunications programs. There is interest in new research opportunities on life in extreme environments, which could include the Yellowstone area, and in the plant genome initiative. I also want to say a few words about a program that is of particular importance to my state--the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). EPSCoR was created to assist states such as Montana become more competitive in the federal R&D arena. Unfortunately, federal R&D funds are highly concentrated in a few universities in a few states. That is not justifiable. Today's global economy requires that all parts of our nation share in scientific and technology development if we are to keep our entire nation and its industries and workforce competitive. Today, we know that scientific and technological problems and issues in one area of the country are likely to affect people in other areas. And, we know that we cannot have a healthy national science and technology system unless there is widespread support throughout our country for it. The EPSCoR program is the base for much of our rural states' scientific and technological activities. It helps Montana and 17 other states develop infrastructure. It helps us develop new programs and take advantage of special opportunities. It has recently been assisting our states on participating more fully in other NSF programs. And, it was instrumental in ensuring that the EPSCoR states participate in the vBNS connections program and the Next Generation Internet initiative. I believe in the EPSCoR program, and would like to see the program expanded in terms of financial assistance, especially when NSF funding overall is increasing and also since the co-founding, which is scheduled to increase in this budget year, should be matched by a similar increase in the base EPSCoR program. I know that the report prepared last fall by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee endorsed by EPSCoR program, and we on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee are equally supportive.