Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 228, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act. I commend Senator McCain for his leadership in drafting this important legislation. We all lose when the Government shuts down. In Montana, as well as across the Nation, Federal workers were furloughed and national parks were closed; businesses and families were negatively affected when the Government shut down in December 1995 and January 1996. Consequently, millions of dollars were lost. President Clinton put Congress between a rock and a hard place in that he knew that we did not want to risk another Government shutdown. We were forced to pass a budget that added $6 billion back into Clinton's pet programs. The President was more interested in playing politics than he was in balancing the budget. Montanans are tired of political games. We can not let the administration replay its efforts to force Congress to spend billions of dollars just to avoid the threat of a shutdown because of gridlock. It is the responsibility of the Government to work for the people--not against them. Senator McCain's bill provides a safeguard against Government shutdowns. It establishes an automatic continuing resolution to provide the lowest spending levels for Federal agencies and programs in the event that the annual appropriations bills are not enacted by the start of the fiscal year. This provides an incentive to pass appropriations bills in a timely manner. This bill also addresses the concerns of those on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as it specifically states that entitlements will be paid regardless of what appropriations are passed. I feel that the Government Shutdown Prevention Act protects Montanans. No longer will Montana's elderly and disabled have to fear not being able to pay medical bills because of a Government shutdown. Welfare recipients will not have to worry about going hungry because of the President's political gameplaying. Finally, Montana communities like West Yellowstone, Gardiner, and Columbia Falls--which serve as gateways to Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks--will not suffer because gridlock has forced the closure of national monuments and parks. The Government Prevention Shutdown Act ensures that the Government is working for the benefit of Montana. This is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in order to offer my support for the Congressional Pension Disclosure Act of 1997. This bill will require that detailed information about the pension of every Member of Congress be published twice a year. These facts--how much has been contributed to a pension plan, how much is to be received in retirement, and acquired Federal retirement benefits--should be public information. Montanans, as well as those in every other State, deserve the right to know how public funds are being spent. The disclosure of pension contributions and benefits will allow Montanans to judge whether or not the amounts are fair and just. Taxpayers will be able to make fully informed decisions about the kind of job we representatives are doing in abiding the will of the people and keeping Government spending under control. The Congressional Pension Disclosure Act will make facts readily available to anyone who wants them. Perception that Congress operates in secrecy would be eliminated and the people of Montana would know that their representatives have nothing to hide. Simply said, by disclosing the size of our pensions, we in Congress will make a step in the right direction toward restoring faith in government by the American people. I commend Senator Abraham for drafting this meaningful legislation, and I am proud to have signed on as a cosponsor of S. 269.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to sponsor a bill being introduced by myself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Johnson on an issue of great importance to my State and the agricultural industry in Montana. The issue is that of labeling meat coming into America from other countries. We are offering today language, which will require all meat products that come from a foreign country to be labeled with the country of origin of that meat. This will allow all Americans to know and understand where the meat they are purchasing really comes from. This bill will protect the consumer as well as an industry which has had to face severe competition from foreign countries in recent years. Today when shopping at the local grocery market, the American consumer is buying meat products without all the information they need to make an informed decision on the product they are purchasing. Our consumers go to the market and purchase meat products with no idea of where the meat they are buying comes from. Recent events in foreign countries have made this issue important to the retail consumer. Outbreak of disease and problems with the quality of foreign products makes it necessary that we provide our consumers with all the information they should have when making an informed decision about the food they are buying. If we look at the vast majority of products that are imported into our country, we find that they are labeled with the country in which that product was produced. We have consumers that for numerous years have established a custom of purchasing only products with a Made in America label. It only seems right that we provide these same consumers with the information that will allow them to make the same intelligent decision when shopping for the food that they consume. Our consumers today go to the market and buy meat products under the assumption that if it carries a USDA inspection and graded label that the meat they are purchasing comes from the United States. This, we have recently found out, can be far from the truth. Just carrying that label does nothing to inform the consumer that the hamburger they are purchasing is from this country. As I stated earlier, recent outbreaks of disease in foreign countries has haunted our American meat producers. The public fears that the beef they are buying could be from a European country with a disease that has killed their citizens. Out breaks in meat and vegetable products leads Americans to fear the purchase of American meat and vegetables because they are under the assumption that the product is American in origin. This is not always the case. The recent outbreak of hepatitis found in strawberries is proof. American agriculture provides the American consumer with the safest most reliable source of food and fiber in the world. With this in mind we then should be informing the American consumer that they really are purchasing American product or if they so chose product raised in a foreign country. I am proud and very pleased to add my name to this bill and I look forward to moving this through the legislative process so we can give our consumers the information on meat that we have provided to them on other numerous consumer goods.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this Senator inquires of the order of business?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed as in morning business for no more than 6 to 7 minutes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is likely the single most frustrating day of the year for many Americans. What self-respecting member of any legislative body would not take to the floor and talk about his or her favorite subject, taxes? We could all relate to the tension of the day and the frustration of working our way through the ``simplified'' tax forms, worrying about making an inadvertent mistake. But, also, how we are going to do what is expected of us? With April 15 now upon us, it is time to reflect on our system of taxation and the burden it places on each and every one of us who live in this country. I know at times the IRS finds itself as the brunt of many jokes. But to a lot of folks in Montana, tax day is no laughing matter. The fact is, families all across this Nation are forced to make some tough financial choices each year around this time. Serious questions are being asked. What can we do as a family to pay our fair share of taxes? By and large, Americans know, and they understand that some taxes are necessary to pay for the essential government services: For education, for the infrastructure of transportation and other services that we enjoy. But the question also surfaces on how to balance our family needs. All too often, the options given require sacrifices. And, you know what? They affect children and they affect relationships. Most times, it is not fair. And sometimes it is just not right. Unfortunately, it seems we are living in an age when only one wage earner cannot live financially secure and comfortable. Nowadays, in order to make ends meet both parents are working, even though one may prefer to remain home with their children. Families in which one parent chooses to remain at home often struggle financially, living paycheck to paycheck, while, on the other hand, dual-income families find a disproportionate share of the second check being melted away with added expenses of cost of child care, additional transportation needs and so on, and still no tax relief on the burden that is suffered on the second paycheck. Neither situation leaves families in a comfortable financial condition. Time and time again we have seen bad economic conditions lead to the demise of families and the family structure. Who suffers? Our children suffer. I believe it is important that we begin the process of reform, which will allow our families more options and, in the end, allow them to keep more of what they earn. Those decisions should be and could be made at home instead of some IRS office or, yes, an office here in Washington, DC. Let families decide, make the financial decision of what to do with their income. All the polls that I have seen taken on the attitudes of Americans tell us that our current system of taxation is in bad need of reform. I agree. Giving Montanans and all Americans the opportunity to be financially secure should be the goal. I might add at this point, the Nation's tax collection agency also needs to do something about its own image. That may be a feat that borders on the impossible, but it should be attempted. There are two taxes, in my estimation, that are destructive of the majority of families. They are death taxes--the estate taxes--and capital gains. Montana, my State, is a State made up of family-run farms and ranches and small businesses. With regard to the death taxes, upon the death of an owner of a small family business or a family farmer ranch, the family is required to pay more than 55 percent of the value of the farm or business value in excess of $600,000. The only thing the survivors want to do is simply continue operating the family business or farm. But in most cases, they are forced to sell it in order to pay those death taxes. No one--no one, Mr. President--should be forced to sell the farm to save the farm. Another equally burdensome tax is the capital gains tax, which punishes those who choose to save and invest for their future. This tax affects everybody who saves and invests to ensure they can take care of themselves and their loved ones. Like the estate tax, the capital gains tax is punitive. It is a voluntary tax. You do not have to pay capital gains tax because you do not have to sell. If you do not sell, you limit economic opportunity in the financial community. Like the estate tax, it is a form of double taxation, moneys taxed once it is earned as income and again upon the sale of an asset or investment, and Lord knows how many times in between, making it even more difficult for families to save for the future. The capital gains tax has a top rate of 28 percent, which is among the highest in the world. Many of the world's strongest economic powers, including Germany, Hong Kong and South Korea, have no capital gains tax at all. These countries recognize the importance of savings. They also recognize the importance of investments, and they know what it takes to create jobs, maintain an economic growth and stability and, let's face it, governments cannot take all the money and provide a stable financial future for anybody with the exception of those who choose to exploit their own government. There is no question in my mind, in order to strengthen the American family, we must make them economically secure. No matter what we say or how good it seems, Government cannot do that. With juvenile crime at an all-time high, there is no hope for young people if they cannot see a future that allows them to use their God-given talents to ensure economic and political freedom. We must put in place those policies that allow us to provide essential Government services, help those who cannot help themselves and build the infrastructure that provides us with opportunity and promise for the future. We must work to ease the excessive tax burden being shouldered by families. It would be a noble work, indeed, in this Senate, if we could provide for the time when decisions could be made by families at the kitchen table with regard to their economic and political future, when parents had more options. We must provide them. Through reform and reduction of our tax burden, this process can begin. The opportunity exists at this time, and the time is now. It ensures parents the opportunity to raise their children comfortably and provide for a stable, financially secure future. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the joint resolution that the majority leaders, my fellow Republican and Democratic colleagues, and the administration has concluded with relation to certification of Mexico. Even though I do not think that this resolution goes far enough, I realize that this agreement is a bipartisan effort that should be enacted for the good of the Nation. Frankly, I am disappointed that we consider a nation that supports drug cartels and warlords worthy of programs funded by the hard earned dollars of American tapayers. However, this resolution will make certain demands of Mexico and the administration to ensure that progress is made in Mexico. This resolution does not entirely burden Mexico with this responsibility; it will also create a partnership. This partnership will try to strengthen bilateral border enforcement, create a permanent working relationship between law enforcement agencies of both nations and actually assist Mexico to identify, remove and prosecute corrupt officials at all levels of Government. By creating this partnership, Mexico and the United States will closely study this situation and actually try to ensure that both of our efforts are being met. With such limited resources, our assistance to Mexico should make a difference. Mr. President, we must work toward ensuring that Mexico halts these destructive practices for our most precious national asset, our children. Over the past few years, there has been a marked increase in the levels of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, and marijuana flowing into the United States through Mexico. This is hitting every urban and rural community in the United States. The protection of our most vulnerable possession, our children is the strongest argument for the passage of this legislation. Finally, we should not be saying to the American people that this law is only good if we can also pass the chemical weapons convention treaty. This is not to suggest my opposition or support for the treaty, but I believe that each issue should be kept separate so as to ensure that both are considered on their own merits. Thus, the most important issue for this Congress today--the only issue for Congress today--is to move forward on this resolution.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fair and Responsible Fund Use Act. It is a bill that will provide for the return of funds, rejected by a State, to the Treasury. These funds will then be used specifically to reduce the Federal deficit. Sometimes the Federal Government makes available to Montana, and other States, funds which are inconsistent with State priorities. Usually this money comes with strings attached. In other words, the Federal Government wants us to take X action to get Y dollars. Sometimes, out of fiscal conservatism, or philosophical differences, States will return that money to the Treasury. But what has been the reward for an individual State's refusal to grab the Federal carrot that has been dangled in front of it? That money is returned to the program for use by other States. That's just not right. California or New York should not be the beneficiaries of Montana's restraint and good judgment. The good people of Montana have asked me to take action to stop this from happening and that's why I am introducing this bill today. The Fair and Responsible Fund Use Act will require that we take those funds returned by the States and use them to pay down our national deficit. Montana and 48 other States are required by law to balance their budgets. While we came one vote short of making that the standard for this Nation, most of us here in Washington are still determine to balance our books. If a State has the courage and willingness to do without a quick Federal buck, then it's only right that the American people, as a whole, should benefit from that action. Whatever the States send back may seem like small potatoes to some people, but as the late Senator Everett Dirksen once said, ``A billion here, and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.'' We face the very real danger of being crushed by our national deficit. Some of our mindless spending in the past years has left us with a debt of 5.34 trillion dollars-- ``trillion'' with a capital ``T.'' And it's only going to get worse if we don't do something to help out. This bill makes good common sense. We all must work together in order to pay off the huge national deficit and this is one step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to commend the majority leader for reintroducing the Older Americans Freedom to Work Act, S. 202, which I recently have cosponsored. This bill will repeal the Social Security earnings limitation, which punishes seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 for working. That's right--for working. The earnings limit, like so many other Government policies, is outdated. Back in the 1930's, it may have made sense to encourage older workers to leave the work force by reducing their Social Security benefits if they worked beyond age 65. But today, the opposite is true: With the baby boomers getting ready to retire, and with a higher life expectancy, we should be encouraging folks to work longer. Most important, workers should have the freedom to work longer if they want to. Last year, after a long-fought effort by Majority Leader Lott and many others, we enacted a gradual increase in the earnings limit from $13,500 today to $30,000 per year in 2002. That is, for seniors between the ages of 65 and 69, each $3 earned over $30,000 per year reduces the worker's Social Security benefits by $1. While this increase is certainly helpful, there is no sound reason for retaining any earnings limitation on seniors who continue to work. That's why this bill is so important. Let's not discourage seniors from working--let's guarantee their freedom to work.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of S. 75, the Family Heritage Preservation Act, I urge my colleagues to support the immediate passage of this measure before more family businesses and farms are lost. They say the only things that are certain in life are death and taxes. The Government has done a perverse job of combining the two in the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers, known as the death taxes. These are the taxes assessed on assets passed from one generation to another, such as family businesses, ranches, and farms. The tax rate starts at 37 percent and quickly rises to a whopping 55 percent, often forcing the liquidation of assets just to pay the tax. S. 75, introduced by Senator Kyl, will repeal the death taxes. It is clear that these taxes do more harm than good, raising only 1 percent of Federal revenues but consuming 8 percent of annual savings. What's more, enforcement and compliance with these taxes takes up 65 cents for each dollar collected. The effects of the taxes on the economy are equally stark: Over an 8-year period without the taxes, the gross domestic product would have been $80 billion higher and 228,000 more jobs would have been created. These death taxes punish hard work and wealth accumulation and drive many family businesses into the ground by forcing them to sell assets to pay the tax. Family farms are hit especially hard--over 90 percent of farms and ranches are sole proprietorships or family partnerships, subjecting most to the taxes when ownership is transferred. I want to note that S. 75 is endorsed by a broad range of small business groups as well as the American Farm Bureau Federation. I thank Senator Kyl for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the Home-Based Business Fairness Act of 1997, introduced yesterday by Senate Small Business Committee Chairman Bond, I rise in strong support of this measure and urge the Senate to approve it as soon as possible. This legislation is composed of three vitally important provisions, and together they make this measure one of the most important the Senate will consider during this Congress. First, this legislation will increase the health insurance deduction for self-employed individuals to 100 percent from the current 40 percent. Second, it will restore the home-office tax deduction where a taxpayer performs essential business functions in a home office used exclusively for business purposes. Finally, it will clarify when a worker is an employee versus an independent contractor, removing the uncertainty of the IRS's current test which can hit small businesses retroactively with liability for back taxes, interest, and penalties. These measures are especially important in Montana, where 98 percent of our businesses are small businesses, accounting for 72.7 percent of all employment in our State. This 72 percent is considerably higher than the 53 percent for the United States as a whole. And we're growing: Montana leads the Nation in new business incorporations. So when we talk about small business issues such as the home-office tax deduction, the health insurance deduction for the self-employed, the independent contractor classification, and other issues, these are the issues affecting Montana businesses. Many of today's workers spend part of their time working at home, often performing administrative duties such as billing. These workers either have no permanent office or perform their main duties in an unconventional environment, such as an operating room. For them, the work performed in a home office is an essential part of their job, even though it may not be the main part of their job. Back in 1993, the Supreme Court in Commissioner versus Soliman created a restrictive test for determining eligible home-based functions. Functions such as billing, though essential, do not meet the Soliman test. The Court went well beyond congressional intent and even beyond the IRS's own interpretation of the law. Shortly after the Soliman decision, I introduced the Home Office Tax Deduction Bill, and I've been pushing for it ever since. We must allow a tax deduction for essential activities, such as billing, performed in the home when that is the only available place for such activities. As the law now stands, workers like Dr. Soliman who spend 15 hours per week doing billing in an exclusive home office are denied the deduction. That's not right. Home offices that are used regularly and solely for business purposes--whether it's by physicians, salespeople, or mothers working at home--should be an allowable deduction. I am proud to be a cosponsor of Sen. Hatch's bill which, like this bill, will restore the deduction for essential functions. I was very pleased that last Congress we enacted an increase in the health insurance tax deduction for the self-employed to 80 percent by 2006. This is a positive first step, but why should not small businesses receive a 100 percent deduction just like big businesses? Health care costs are one of the main barriers to successful self-run businesses, and this modest proposal will go a long way toward helping these businesses survive and thrive. Finally, the top priority of small businesses is clarification of the independent contractor definition. The current 20-part test used by the IRS to determine who is an employee, for which, of course, employers must pay Federal taxes, is confusing and imprecise. The law is tough to follow when it is unpredictable from case to case. This bill simply clarifies who is an independent contractor by applying a clear three- part test. Businesspeople need a simple rule to follow, and this will provide it. No business should be subject to the whim of the IRS. I thank Chairman Bond for his leadership on this bill and I look forward to working with him to get it to the President's desk.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the confirmation of Merrick Garland to the D.C. circuit. Even though the nominee has the character and is highly qualified for the position, there is a larger question that must be examined. Does this seat really need to be filled? Especially since it has remained empty for 1\1/2\ years? The answer is that the D.C. circuit does not need another seat, especially when there are many other problems in the other district circuits that have not been focused on yet. I base my opinion on the fact that the D.C. circuit had 4,359 cases as of October 1996. The ninth circuit, the circuit in which Montana is housed, had 71,462 cases. That is almost 20 times the number of cases. The D.C. circuit ranked last in the total number of cases as compared to each of the other district circuits in the Nation. If we examine these numbers, it does not seem as if the D.C. judges are handling any cases at all. This is also a very expensive seat. It will cost the American taxpayers an extra $1 million to fill this seat. This will not be money well spent. There are adequate numbers of judges on the circuit, why are we confirming this seat? I urge my colleagues to examine the numbers and vote against the filling of this unneeded seat.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the home office tax deduction bill introduced today by Senator Hatch, I rise in strong support of this measure and urge its expeditious passage in the Senate. Today, home-based business is the new workplace. The new workplace is interactive video, the Internet, and digital documents. Telecommuting is now common, saving travel costs and time. But it's not just a matter of cost, it's a matter of lifestyle. With technology, the new workplace means you can live anywhere you want and still make a living doing what you love. And spend a few extra hours with the kids. In my State of Montana, where there's a lot of dirt between light bulbs, those extra hours really add up. Back in 1993, shortly after the Supreme Court's Soliman decision, I introduced the home office tax deduction bill, and I've been pushing for it ever since. We must allow a tax deduction for essential activities, such as billing, performed in the home when that is the only available place for such activities. As the law now stands, workers like Dr. Soliman who spend 15 hours per week doing billing in an exclusive home office are denied the deduction. That's not right. Home offices that are used regularly and solely for business purposes-- whether it's by physicians, salespeople, or mothers working at home-- should be an allowable deduction. A few weeks ago the Senate Small Business Committee, of which I am a member, held a hearing on women-owned and home-based businesses. We heard from small businesspeople who expressed their frustration with Federal tax laws that hinder their ability to succeed. Some of today's largest companies started as home businesses, and the potential for job and economic growth is unlimited, provided the tax code is not a barrier to that growth. I thank Senator Hatch for introducing this measure today.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as a co-sponsor of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act of 1997, I rise to express my strong support for this legislation. Mr. President, Americans have always struggled to balance the conflicting demands of work and family, but today, more than ever, families, especially double earners, are finding the old, rigid workplace structure of a different era to be the main barrier to a family friendly schedule. This is ironic because today's technology makes telecommuting from home common through the Internet and interactive video, allowing the flexibility many workers need to spend more time with their families. The problem is that in the eyes of our Federal laws the workplace has not changed since the 1930's. Federal wage-and-hour laws were developed during the New Deal era, when about one mother in six with school-aged children worked. But the workplace is vastly different today. Over 70 percent of mothers with kids in school work, and the rigid 8-hour-per- day, 40-hour-per-week work schedule is less rational or justifiable. Simply put, the wage-and-hour laws belong in a different era--one that ended about 50 years ago. Federal Government workers have had a flexible work schedule option for three decades. Under a flextime arrangement, many Federal employees work 10-hour days, 4 days per week. For a mother with a young child, this means 1 less day per week she'll have to pay for daycare. You can bet that adds up. Flextime has been a tremendous benefit for Federal workers, especially women. Why shouldn't non-Federal workers have this benefit as well? The answer is that they should, and that's what S. 4 will do. Under this bill, an employee will have three options: First, flexible scheduling--to work additional hours 1 week for credit, up to 50 hours, toward a shorter work day or work week later at full pay; second, bi- weekly scheduling--to schedule 80 hours over a 2-week period in any combination; or third, compensatory time off--to choose time-and-a-half compensatory time off, up to 240 hours--160 hours at time-and-a-half, for overtime hours worked in lieu of time-and-a-half pay. No employee may be required to participate in these programs, and coercion or intimidation by the employer with respect to participation is prohibited. This is commonsense legislation endorsed by Working Women and Working Mother magazines. It's time to tear down the barriers to a family friendly workplace and give hardworking Americans the flexibility to spend time with their families.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for S. 6, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997. As a cosponsor of this bill, I want to take a moment to discuss why it is so important that we act on it as soon as possible. Mr. President, as my voting record shows, I have always voted pro- life on issues concerning abortion. However, my support for S. 6 and my vote on the partial birth abortion ban during the 104th Congress was not simply a moral judgment on abortion. This debate is not about reproductive choice; it's not even about abortion. Partial birth abortion is a cruel procedure and is abhorrent to most Americans. In fact, most physicians believe it is never medically necessary. This procedure is far beyond human decency. Mr. President, it is shocking to me that the debate over partial birth abortion is even necessary. A procedure whereby a child is partly delivered and then its brains are suctioned out has no place in a civilized society. It certainly has no place in America. Let's join together, pro-life and pro-choice, and do the right thing. Let's put an end to this cruel procedure.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Delaware. I rise today with some concerns about the new trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky. But I also rise to support her nomination. She has proven herself to be a tough negotiator as the acting trade representative. She recently played a major role in the opening of foreign markets in telecommunications, an agreement which we hope will decrease the costs of international calls and likely to have similar impact on domestic rates as well as U.S. companies competing on a worldwide basis. But on the other hand, Ms. Barshefsky's bidding on the administration's behalf of NAFTA to expand into some South American countries has me somewhat concerned. There is nobody in this body who fights harder for his people than the Senator from South Carolina. And I think I know why, because I visited that State one time, and he walks among those people who have lost their jobs in textile mills and understands those people's pain. We are now suffering that kind of a pain because of the border wars with Canada in the State of Montana. Whenever you start talking about fast tracking authority to expand NAFTA, and you understand the effect NAFTA has had on us in the beef industry and the grain industry--and that is what I am; I am not anything else fancy--then I say we have to approach that very cautiously, because I am not going to lower the living standards of my farmers for the sake of so-called free trade unless it is fair trade. If left unchecked, it will also contribute to the devastation of other sectors in our Nation's economy as well, if we do not just look at some of these things. We live in a free economy, we live in a global economy. I admit while Canadian livestock producers reap the benefits of new profit markets, Montana producers are hit with a flood of imports at the same time that the cattle market is already at the bottom of its scale. So we cannot afford any more of this. To stem that, we will have to do it through enabling legislation. I say that the pending amendment is one that has to be discussed among the FCC, keeping in mind that the final rule of last year's telecom bill has not been written yet. So, I have some very strong concerns about the expansion that this President and this administration want to take. We see loaded trucks with cattle going through Montana, and we say, are they stopping here? And they say, no, they are going south. We lost the Mexican market, plus we lost some of our own markets through the last little deal. We got snookered a little bit talking about NAFTA. I oppose any kind of fast track as far as the expansion of NAFTA is concerned because I think it has to be done the right way. I voted against it the first time, understanding where the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Montana were coming from, and I will probably, unless we have a mechanism we can work out these troubles that we have, playing on a level playing field, I am saying right now that if you want to ship cattle into the United States, I want you to have the same rules and regulations, the same environmental laws as we have to comply with in this country. That is only fair. If Ms. Barshefsky is a tough negotiator, I will stand beside her, but do not use agriculture as a pawn and then sell it out like we have in times past. One has to remember that agriculture is still the largest contributor to the GDP in this country. I will support her in the upcoming confirmation vote and hope that she works with us in Congress whenever negotiations of expansion get under way. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Utah, Mr. President. Mr. President, the old words come back to haunt us almost during these times of debate, especially over the issue of a balanced budget. I quote the words of Thomas Jefferson when he was speaking to the Framers of the Constitution. He expressed these words of his concerns regarding debt: We, Congress, should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves. Why is it so hard to understand that the Federal Government should balance the budget when State governments and county governments and city governments do? Why is it that we cannot accumulate or mandate to carry reserves in each line for a rainy day? That is not too hard to understand, and that is what we are talking about here, responsibility and the integrity of Government to function. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Senate will be in session for a period of morning business, with no rollcall votes conducted during today's session. Under a previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1, the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. Following closing statements on the balanced budget amendment, a vote will occur on the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 1 at 5:15 p.m. tomorrow. I want my colleagues to be further advised that the time has not been moved. A vote will occur tomorrow at 5:15 p.m.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, last month, the Secretary of Agriculture announced the new rules and regulations on the Conservation Reserve Program in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We find that we are starting to take a program that has been claimed as one of the great success programs, as far as soil conservation, watershed management, wildlife habitat, in our respective States. There is no doubt about it, that we have land that was taken out of production that was marginal land, should never have been in row crop or crop production, should have been grass all those years, and we have noticed an increase, a notable increase in upland bird populations, also in white tail deer and other wildlife that depend on a habitat that the CRP would afford. There has been a rule change, however. This was brought to our attention by our good friends and neighbors who are living and working on the grain farms of Montana, and especially in eastern Montana. The announcement by U.S. Department of Agriculture to start a sign up for an extension, or increased acreage received into the program going up to 220 million acres across this country. Now, it would look like the acreage is capped around 36.4 million acres, but there have been new rules made on about half of American cropland making it now eligible for CRP. It was brought up in this new announcement and the timing is flawed. The new rules give the worst lands the lowest rate, the best lands the highest rate. So right now we have figures coming in from the different counties and it could be on dirt farms as low as $17 an acre. What happens when you get a bid to take lands out of production at $17 an acre--I do not care what you do on that land, it will produce more than $17 an acre. So, what is happening is that the good land is going into the CRP--in other words, taken out of production--and we will farm our worst land, having the exact opposite effect that was desired in the first place. The process is a burden to participants if you have between now and this month of March to sign up. Just think, that has to go to the local level, whenever you make those arrangements, that application for CRP. It goes from the local board to the State board to the Federal board before it is approved back to the farmer. The farmer does not know what he will be planting or harvesting this year. It could be June or July. In fact, the president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, Philip McClain, testified before the House Forestry Resource and Conservation and Research Subcommittee and expressed his concern that the USDA will not decide which offers being made by the growers during that March CRP signup will be accepted into most areas until June. Now, if it is July in our country--in other words, the winter wheat people are really put at a disadvantage if you are in the southern climes. In the northern climes, it is too late to plant a spring crop. The delayed signup really puts a hardship on wheat growers, no matter in which part of the country you farm--whether it's Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, or going on north to the Canadian border. So the National Association of Wheat Growers, all at once over the weekend, has said, wait a minute here, we need immediate congressional action, maybe to recommend that we extend the present contracts, which expire this fall and which qualify for participation under the current eligibility criteria. I think that is a good recommendation. Even the USDA State staff feels that the problems that are associated with this program make a mockery of the intent of the program. It does not provide the original intent of why CRP was put in in the first place. So I recommend to the Department of Agriculture--and they have time, I think, to look at this, and, if not, I think Congress should take a very serious look at it, because it is just not fair if you have a program that will work exactly the opposite from what was intended and put all the grain producers at a disadvantage. I suggest that the Secretary extend the current program for 1 year. Let's give it some time and take a look at it and try to get the desired results and rewrite the rules to reflect the intent of the program. The intent of the program was to take marginal land out of production so that we can manage watershed, we can manage soil erosion, we can manage wetlands, potholes, all of the environmental concerns that this country has. We can take a look at this, given more time to do it. Of course, these recommendations are supported by the National Association of Wheat Growers. So with this in mind, with the good record of CRP, a program that has been highly successful in doing two things that were most desired in rural America, I think it is only right to extend those rules through the program this year. Let's look at it, and this time we might be able to get it right. Right now, we are extending some programs that would suggest exactly the opposite.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today there will be legislation that will be introduced in the Congress having to do with estate taxes. I know estate taxes and capital gains are viewed by many as tax relief for the rich. Last week, a week ago today, I was watching a television program and there was a financial organization, or a mutual fund, who had declared that they had been so successful that they have to declare a capital gain. The people who had investments in that mutual fund would be assessed a tax because of those capital gains. I didn't see one rich man in that line that came down to complain about that. So it is not just that. If you are really concerned about keeping farmers on the land and letting young farmers get started, we have to start taking a look at capital gains, because I think we have to lower the average age of the farmers today, and also estate taxes, so that we can pass these farms and ranches and small businesses on to the next generation. Mr. President, I see my time has expired. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, when I want to communicate, sometimes I send a postcard. In that case, I know not to say anything that I don't want printed on the front page of the newspaper. Somebody, anybody, can read it. When I buy an envelope and put a stamp on it, I am taking a step toward securing that information. I have a reasonable expectation that people will not open my mail. When I talk on the telephone--at least on a landline telephone--I have a reasonable expectation that nobody is listening in. Today, we are in a world that is characterized by the fact that nearly everyone has a computer and that those computers are, for the most part, connected to one another. In light of that fact, it is becoming more and more important to ensure that our communications over these computer networks are conducted in a secure way. It is no longer possible to say that when we move into the information age, we'll secure these networks, because we are already there. We use computers in our homes and businesses in a way that couldn't have been imagined 10 years ago, and these computers are connected through networks, making it easier to communicate than ever before. This phenomenon holds the promise of transforming life in States like Montana, where health care and state-of-the-art education can be delivered over networks to people located away from population centers. These new technologies can improve the lives of real people, but only if the security of information that moves over these networks is safe and reliable. The problem today is that our computer networks are not as secure as they could be; it is fairly easy for amateur hackers to break into our networks. They can intercept information; they can steal trade secrets and intellectual property; they can alter medical records; the list is endless. Last Congress, FBI Director Freeh stated his profound concerns about the threat of economic espionage on a global basis. One solution to this, of course, is to let individuals and businesses alike to take steps to secure that information. Encryption is one technology that accomplishes that. Domestically, Americans are free to use strong encryption to secure their information--we are determined to make sure that that guarantee prevails. I rise today to introduce a bill, similar to one I introduced during the 104th Congress, which designed to promote electronic commerce, both domestically and globally, by facilitating the use of strong encryption. Last Congress, my bill was criticized for not acknowledging the legitimate law enforcement and national security interests raised by the widespread use of strong, or unbreakable encryption. In response to those criticisms, this Congress, working with Senator Leahy, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Lott, has modified this bill to address those concerns. Our approach, though, encourages Government officials to abandon the head-in-the-sand approach that they've taken for the past 7 years, hoping that strong encryption would not become available globally, and take a proactive approach to addressing this technology. Because everyone agrees that this technology will eventually be widely available globally--many of us believe that the technology is already widely available globally--now is the time to get industry working with Government officials to teach them how to execute their duties in a global communications network where strong encryption is ubiquitous. We believe that this bill lays the most responsible course for addressing this technology, and I am pleased to announce that the following Senators have signed onto this bill as original cosponsors: Majority Leader Lott, Assistant Majority Leader Nickles, Senator Dorgan, Senator Wyden, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Craig, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Domenici, Senator Murray, Senator Brownback, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Inhofe, Senator Boxer, Senator Faircloth, Senator Thomas, Senator Grams, and Senator Allard. With such impressive bipartisan support, I am extremely optimistic that the bill will be reported out of the Commerce Committee quickly and will pass the Senate during this Congress. As I mentioned earlier, this legislation was drafted to not only address the concerns raised by industry but also to encourage law enforcement and national security officials to prepare themselves to do their job in an environment where strong, unbreakable encryption is everywhere. To date, the FBI/NSA/CIA have devoted their efforts in this area to maintaining the status quo and hoping that strong encryption does not become common worldwide. The evidence from a Commerce Department study conducted over a year ago, indicates that this has already taken place--the study identified 497 foreign-made products that were capable of offering encryption at a level in excess of that which domestic companies could export under the present export restrictions in 28 foreign countries. Therefore, this legislation encourages these officials to address this technology proactively. Essentially the bill was designed to accomplish the following: Ending the imposition of U.S. Government-designed encryption standards. This is accomplished by restricting the Department of Commerce [NIST] from imposing Government encryption standards intended for use by the private sector, and by prohibiting the Department of Commerce from setting de facto encryption standards through use of export controls. Promoting the use of commercial encryption. This is accomplished by prohibiting the restrictions on the sale of commercial encryption programs and products in interstate commerce; by prohibiting governmental imposition, expressly or in practice, of mandatory key escrow; and by permitting the export of, first, generally available software with encryption capabilities, and second, other software and hardware with encryption capabilities if exports of products with similar security have been exported for use by foreign financial institutions. Protecting the national security and public safety. This is accomplished by, first, imposing industry reporting requirements upon companies wishing to export products with strong encryption; second, creating an Information Security Board whose purpose is to get industry experts and law enforcement/national security officers to work together--both publicly and privately--to address the execution of law enforcement/national security functions in an environment where strong encryption has widely proliferated; and third, by prohibiting exports of particular encryption software and hardware to identified individuals or organizations in specific foreign countries if there is substantial evidence that it will be diverted to, or modified for, military or terrorist end-use. We believe that getting law enforcement and national security officials to address this technology proactively is a more responsible and defensible position than mandating a key escrow or other key recovery system upon industry. This legislation is vitally important to a wide range of domestic industries. The export restriction poses serious commercial threats to three distinct classes of industry: first, the industry that manufacturers and sells encryption software and hardware; second, industries that purchase encryption hardware and software and incorporate that technology into their products; and third, all industries that communicate with subsidiaries or customers over the global communications network. The Encryption Manufacturing Industry While domestic companies presently hold a position of global leadership in the manufacture of products that provide strong encryption, this leadership is threatened by the provisions restricting the export of this technology. Because there are no import restrictions on the sale of this technology and because there are no domestic restrictions on the sale of this technology, foreign manufacturers of encryption technology have seized the opportunity provided by the continued application of these export restrictions to steal market share from domestic companies. Because we are already seeing hundreds of different foreign-made products offering strong encryption in the global marketplace, the foreign companies who manufacture these products are not only cornering the foreign market for this technology, they are beginning to compete for the U.S. market--as the global export of their product increases, their per-unit cost decreases; thus, domestic companies may soon find themselves competing for the U.S. market against a foreign product which offers comparable security but at a lower cost. In effect, these export restrictions are effectively exporting the entire encryption manufacturing industry. industries that incorporate encryption technology into their products The export restrictions apply not only to companies who are in the business of the manufacture and sale of encryption technology, but also to entire industries that purchase this technology and incorporate it into their products. The restrictions even apply to domestic industries who import encryption technology and incorporate it into their products. Furthermore, the restrictions prohibit export of products that are encryption-ready, that is, are designed to have the encryption package installed elsewhere. These industries suffer the same competition disadvantage in the global marketplace that our domestic encryption manufacturing companies face. Likewise, it will not be long before these industries find themselves (having already conceded all foreign markets to foreign competitors) competing for the U.S. market with foreign competitors offering similar products but at a lower price. Thus, continued application of the export restrictions on encryption technology could result in the export of a wide range of industries. As information security becomes an increasingly important consideration, we are seeing a broad range of products that are incorporating encryption technology. For example, the entire telecommunications manufacturing industry--from cellular telephones to switches--has a direct stake in this debate. Likewise, virtually all manufacturing concerns are impacted. I am in the process of collecting statements from 23 separate industries who see the speedy resolution of this problem as critical to their survival in the global marketplace. nightmare scenario During the first hearing on Pro-Code last Congress, one of the witnesses, Jim Bidzos, the founder and owner of RSA Data Security, a prominent domestic encryption manufacturing company, pointed out that the United States is presently on the verge of exporting, industry by industry, the lion's share of our country's industry base. At that hearing, he pointed out that Nippon Telephone & Telegraph [NTT], the largest company on the planet with $600 billion in annual revenues and $300 million in annual subsidies from the Japanese Government has just announced the production--and intention to export globally--of a computer chip that provided unbreakable encryption, with a key of 1,024 bit length. Thus, NTT is now in the position of cornering--quite easily, I might add--the global market on this technology and will soon be competing directly with RSA for the U.S. market with similar chips which, due to economies of scale, cost less to consumers. Once NTT has run all of its U.S. competitors out of business, it will be uniquely poised to take over every industry that incorporates the NTT chip into a product, in the exact same way as they took over the chips manufacturing industry. companies who transmit proprietary information over the global communications network Not only do the export restrictions pose commercial problems for industries that manufacture or incorporate encryption technology into their products, they also raise serious economic threats to any industry that transmits proprietary information over the global communications network. Because the public communications network is global, the export restrictions effectively prohibit companies who wish to communicate with subsidiaries, partners, or customers outside the United States in a secure way; transmitting the hardware or software to international associates to provide communications security in excess of that allowable under the export restrictions violate those restrictions. The economic implications arising from this application of the export restrictions is staggering: petroleum companies can't send exploration data to overseas subsidiaries; automotive companies can't send design information to factories abroad; Walt Disney can't send the digital package of the movie the Lion King to its distributor in England; the list is endless. Thus, all intellectual property or other proprietary information that travels over the public network is put at risk of economic espionage as a result of this application of these export restrictions. Finally, the controversy over this technology raises serious fourth amendment constitutional issues. In a new era where one's personal and economic information is increasingly rendered in digital form, the ability of the Government to peer into such data at will raises serious fourth amendment concerns. Further, it raises first amendment constitutional issues as well. Last month, a California Appellate Court affirmed a favorable ruling in the first amendment challenge to the Arms Export Control Act [AECA] and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] in Bernstein versus U.S. Department of State. Bernstein involved a graduate student, Daniel J. Bernstein, who developed an encryption algorithm called Snuffle. He had articulated his mathematical ideas in two ways: in an academic paper and in a source code. The State Department denied Bernstein's request to export his cryptographic product for the purposes of teaching the Snuffle algorithm, to disclose it at academic conferences, or to publish it in journals or online discussion groups. Bernstein alleged that the restrictions were: an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech; an infringement on his free speech; and infringed the rights of association and equal protection. The State Department moved to dismiss the case of the grounds that these issues were nonjusticible, and the Court denied the motion finding that source code was considered to be speech for the purposes of the first amendment analysis. In light of the pressing commercial and constitutional impact of restricting the sale of this technology, both domestically and abroad, I believe that we must act now, before we effectively export entire industries. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting Pro- Code. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, when I want to communicate, sometimes I send a postcard. In that case, I know not to say anything that I don't want printed on the front page of the newspaper. Somebody, anybody, can read it. When I buy an envelope and put a stamp on it, I am taking a step toward securing that information. I have a reasonable expectation that people will not open my mail. When I talk on the telephone--at least on a landline telephone--I have a reasonable expectation that nobody is listening in. Today, we are in a world that is characterized by the fact that nearly everyone has a computer and that those computers are, for the most part, connected to one another. In light of that fact, it is becoming more and more important to ensure that our communications over these computer networks are conducted in a secure way. It is no longer possible to say that when we move into the information age, we'll secure these networks, because we are already there. We use computers in our homes and businesses in a way that couldn't have been imagined 10 years ago, and these computers are connected through networks, making it easier to communicate than ever before. This phenomenon holds the promise of transforming life in States like Montana, where health care and state-of-the-art education can be delivered over networks to people located away from population centers. These new technologies can improve the lives of real people, but only if the security of information that moves over these networks is safe and reliable. The problem today is that our computer networks are not as secure as they could be; it is fairly easy for amateur hackers to break into our networks. They can intercept information; they can steal trade secrets and intellectual property; they can alter medical records; the list is endless. Last Congress, FBI Director Freeh stated his profound concerns about the threat of economic espionage on a global basis. One solution to this, of course, is to let individuals and businesses alike to take steps to secure that information. Encryption is one technology that accomplishes that. Domestically, Americans are free to use strong encryption to secure their information--we are determined to make sure that that guarantee prevails. I rise today to introduce a bill, similar to one I introduced during the 104th Congress, which designed to promote electronic commerce, both domestically and globally, by facilitating the use of strong encryption. Last Congress, my bill was criticized for not acknowledging the legitimate law enforcement and national security interests raised by the widespread use of strong, or unbreakable encryption. In response to those criticisms, this Congress, working with Senator Leahy, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Lott, has modified this bill to address those concerns. Our approach, though, encourages Government officials to abandon the head-in-the-sand approach that they've taken for the past 7 years, hoping that strong encryption would not become available globally, and take a proactive approach to addressing this technology. Because everyone agrees that this technology will eventually be widely available globally--many of us believe that the technology is already widely available globally--now is the time to get industry working with Government officials to teach them how to execute their duties in a global communications network where strong encryption is ubiquitous. We believe that this bill lays the most responsible course for addressing this technology, and I am pleased to announce that the following Senators have signed onto this bill as original cosponsors: Majority Leader Lott, Assistant Majority Leader Nickles, Senator Dorgan, Senator Wyden, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Craig, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Domenici, Senator Murray, Senator Brownback, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Inhofe, Senator Boxer, Senator Faircloth, Senator Thomas, Senator Grams, and Senator Allard. With such impressive bipartisan support, I am extremely optimistic that the bill will be reported out of the Commerce Committee quickly and will pass the Senate during this Congress. As I mentioned earlier, this legislation was drafted to not only address the concerns raised by industry but also to encourage law enforcement and national security officials to prepare themselves to do their job in an environment where strong, unbreakable encryption is everywhere. To date, the FBI/NSA/CIA have devoted their efforts in this area to maintaining the status quo and hoping that strong encryption does not become common worldwide. The evidence from a Commerce Department study conducted over a year ago, indicates that this has already taken place--the study identified 497 foreign-made products that were capable of offering encryption at a level in excess of that which domestic companies could export under the present export restrictions in 28 foreign countries. Therefore, this legislation encourages these officials to address this technology proactively. Essentially the bill was designed to accomplish the following: Ending the imposition of U.S. Government-designed encryption standards. This is accomplished by restricting the Department of Commerce [NIST] from imposing Government encryption standards intended for use by the private sector, and by prohibiting the Department of Commerce from setting de facto encryption standards through use of export controls. Promoting the use of commercial encryption. This is accomplished by prohibiting the restrictions on the sale of commercial encryption programs and products in interstate commerce; by prohibiting governmental imposition, expressly or in practice, of mandatory key escrow; and by permitting the export of, first, generally available software with encryption capabilities, and second, other software and hardware with encryption capabilities if exports of products with similar security have been exported for use by foreign financial institutions. Protecting the national security and public safety. This is accomplished by, first, imposing industry reporting requirements upon companies wishing to export products with strong encryption; second, creating an Information Security Board whose purpose is to get industry experts and law enforcement/national security officers to work together--both publicly and privately--to address the execution of law enforcement/national security functions in an environment where strong encryption has widely proliferated; and third, by prohibiting exports of particular encryption software and hardware to identified individuals or organizations in specific foreign countries if there is substantial evidence that it will be diverted to, or modified for, military or terrorist end-use. We believe that getting law enforcement and national security officials to address this technology proactively is a more responsible and defensible position than mandating a key escrow or other key recovery system upon industry. This legislation is vitally important to a wide range of domestic industries. The export restriction poses serious commercial threats to three distinct classes of industry: first, the industry that manufacturers and sells encryption software and hardware; second, industries that purchase encryption hardware and software and incorporate that technology into their products; and third, all industries that communicate with subsidiaries or customers over the global communications network. The Encryption Manufacturing Industry While domestic companies presently hold a position of global leadership in the manufacture of products that provide strong encryption, this leadership is threatened by the provisions restricting the export of this technology. Because there are no import restrictions on the sale of this technology and because there are no domestic restrictions on the sale of this technology, foreign manufacturers of encryption technology have seized the opportunity provided by the continued application of these export restrictions to steal market share from domestic companies. Because we are already seeing hundreds of different foreign-made products offering strong encryption in the global marketplace, the foreign companies who manufacture these products are not only cornering the foreign market for this technology, they are beginning to compete for the U.S. market--as the global export of their product increases, their per-unit cost decreases; thus, domestic companies may soon find themselves competing for the U.S. market against a foreign product which offers comparable security but at a lower cost. In effect, these export restrictions are effectively exporting the entire encryption manufacturing industry. industries that incorporate encryption technology into their products The export restrictions apply not only to companies who are in the business of the manufacture and sale of encryption technology, but also to entire industries that purchase this technology and incorporate it into their products. The restrictions even apply to domestic industries who import encryption technology and incorporate it into their products. Furthermore, the restrictions prohibit export of products that are encryption-ready, that is, are designed to have the encryption package installed elsewhere. These industries suffer the same competition disadvantage in the global marketplace that our domestic encryption manufacturing companies face. Likewise, it will not be long before these industries find themselves (having already conceded all foreign markets to foreign competitors) competing for the U.S. market with foreign competitors offering similar products but at a lower price. Thus, continued application of the export restrictions on encryption technology could result in the export of a wide range of industries. As information security becomes an increasingly important consideration, we are seeing a broad range of products that are incorporating encryption technology. For example, the entire telecommunications manufacturing industry--from cellular telephones to switches--has a direct stake in this debate. Likewise, virtually all manufacturing concerns are impacted. I am in the process of collecting statements from 23 separate industries who see the speedy resolution of this problem as critical to their survival in the global marketplace. nightmare scenario During the first hearing on Pro-Code last Congress, one of the witnesses, Jim Bidzos, the founder and owner of RSA Data Security, a prominent domestic encryption manufacturing company, pointed out that the United States is presently on the verge of exporting, industry by industry, the lion's share of our country's industry base. At that hearing, he pointed out that Nippon Telephone & Telegraph [NTT], the largest company on the planet with $600 billion in annual revenues and $300 million in annual subsidies from the Japanese Government has just announced the production--and intention to export globally--of a computer chip that provided unbreakable encryption, with a key of 1,024 bit length. Thus, NTT is now in the position of cornering--quite easily, I might add--the global market on this technology and will soon be competing directly with RSA for the U.S. market with similar chips which, due to economies of scale, cost less to consumers. Once NTT has run all of its U.S. competitors out of business, it will be uniquely poised to take over every industry that incorporates the NTT chip into a product, in the exact same way as they took over the chips manufacturing industry. companies who transmit proprietary information over the global communications network Not only do the export restrictions pose commercial problems for industries that manufacture or incorporate encryption technology into their products, they also raise serious economic threats to any industry that transmits proprietary information over the global communications network. Because the public communications network is global, the export restrictions effectively prohibit companies who wish to communicate with subsidiaries, partners, or customers outside the United States in a secure way; transmitting the hardware or software to international associates to provide communications security in excess of that allowable under the export restrictions violate those restrictions. The economic implications arising from this application of the export restrictions is staggering: petroleum companies can't send exploration data to overseas subsidiaries; automotive companies can't send design information to factories abroad; Walt Disney can't send the digital package of the movie the Lion King to its distributor in England; the list is endless. Thus, all intellectual property or other proprietary information that travels over the public network is put at risk of economic espionage as a result of this application of these export restrictions. Finally, the controversy over this technology raises serious fourth amendment constitutional issues. In a new era where one's personal and economic information is increasingly rendered in digital form, the ability of the Government to peer into such data at will raises serious fourth amendment concerns. Further, it raises first amendment constitutional issues as well. Last month, a California Appellate Court affirmed a favorable ruling in the first amendment challenge to the Arms Export Control Act [AECA] and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] in Bernstein versus U.S. Department of State. Bernstein involved a graduate student, Daniel J. Bernstein, who developed an encryption algorithm called Snuffle. He had articulated his mathematical ideas in two ways: in an academic paper and in a source code. The State Department denied Bernstein's request to export his cryptographic product for the purposes of teaching the Snuffle algorithm, to disclose it at academic conferences, or to publish it in journals or online discussion groups. Bernstein alleged that the restrictions were: an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech; an infringement on his free speech; and infringed the rights of association and equal protection. The State Department moved to dismiss the case of the grounds that these issues were nonjusticible, and the Court denied the motion finding that source code was considered to be speech for the purposes of the first amendment analysis. In light of the pressing commercial and constitutional impact of restricting the sale of this technology, both domestically and abroad, I believe that we must act now, before we effectively export entire industries. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting Pro- Code. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. President, this bill simply prohibits Federal tax funds from being used to pay for or promote assisted suicide or euthanasia. Specifically, the bill will prevent Federal funding for items or services ``the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual.'' The prohibition will encompass Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Program, medical services for prisoners, and the military health care system. This bill does not create any limitation with regard to the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or of nutrition or hydration, or affect funding for abortion or for alleviating pain or discomfort for patients. The American people oppose taxpayer funding of assisted suicide by an overwhelming margin. In addition, the American Medical Association has endorsed this bill. Yet States are free to legalize assisted suicide, as Oregon has by referendum, and this raises the prospect of Federal Medicaid dollars being used to facilitate suicide. The Federal Government must not be in the business of promoting death. Let's listen to the American people and settle the question of publicly funding assisted suicide once and for all. I urge my colleague to join us in supporting the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. President, this bill simply prohibits Federal tax funds from being used to pay for or promote assisted suicide or euthanasia. Specifically, the bill will prevent Federal funding for items or services ``the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual.'' The prohibition will encompass Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Program, medical services for prisoners, and the military health care system. This bill does not create any limitation with regard to the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or of nutrition or hydration, or affect funding for abortion or for alleviating pain or discomfort for patients. The American people oppose taxpayer funding of assisted suicide by an overwhelming margin. In addition, the American Medical Association has endorsed this bill. Yet States are free to legalize assisted suicide, as Oregon has by referendum, and this raises the prospect of Federal Medicaid dollars being used to facilitate suicide. The Federal Government must not be in the business of promoting death. Let's listen to the American people and settle the question of publicly funding assisted suicide once and for all. I urge my colleague to join us in supporting the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997.