Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment with the Senate's inability to act on the important issue of corporate average fuel economy standards for our Nation's vehicles. Addressing the transportation sector's consumption of fossil fuels is an integral part of any energy policy designed to meet the needs of our 21st century economy. I continue to believe that raising CAFE standards is absolutely critical in promoting more efficient fuel use--thus weening this nation from its dependence on foreign oil--while continuing to meet our transportation needs. At the same time, CAFE standards promise environmental benefits and savings for consumers. Despite what some in industry might suggest--suggestions that harken back to Congress' first debate on CAFE in 1975, when some claimed the current standards would render this Nation's auto manufacturers extinct--I believe we have the technologies and the American ingenuity necessary to meet the goals set out by tougher CAFE standards. Transportation accounts for 67 percent of U.S. oil consumption and one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, improving the efficiency of the U.S. vehicle fleet would serve the public interest by reducing individuals' exposure to fluctuations in oil prices and emitting fewer of climate changing greenhouse gases. To me, the numbers suggest a very clear choice. If my colleagues truly wanted to take the environmentally and economically responsible vote--to mitigate our exposure to foreign oil and economically devastating price shocks--they would have acted today to increase our fuel efficiency standards. I believe many in this Chamber agree on the theoretical goals of this bill--increased energy independence, diversification or our energy resources and improving the energy efficiency of our economy. But my colleagues must realize that to meet these goals we must address both supply-side and demand-side of the equation. And we cannot wait to take action. Simply cranking up oil production and ignoring the efficiencies at our fingertips will ensure that we will be in the same place 20 years from now--or worse yet, even more dependent on foreign sources of oil. Estimates suggest that if the status quo is maintained, our dependence will grow from 51 percent today, to 64 percent in 2020. If the status quo is maintained, we will be asking ourselves the same questions about economic and energy security as we are asking ourselves today. I believe that the CAFE provision proposed by Senator Kerry and Senator McCain, like its predecessor in 1975, would have gone a long way toward meeting the multiple goals of the overall energy bill. In addition to the energy security and environmental benefits I've already mentioned, it would have protected consumers against disruptions in oil supplies that increase the cost of a gallon of gasoline. The current CAFE standard--which has saved 14 percent of fuel consumption from what it would have been without CAFE--has not been updated in 20 years. By increasing fuel economy standards, consumers would travel farther on a gallon of gasoline than ever before. Since the introduction of the first CAFE standards in 1975, vehicle operating expenses have been halved, mostly due to decreased expenditures on gas and oil. Increasing fuel efficiency has a second impact, which is to help to stimulate the American economy by keeping dollars at home. At present, Americans spend over $300 million dollars per day on foreign oil. By reducing how much of that oil we consume, Americans save billions of dollars a year at the gas pump. This money would be available for reinvestment in our own economy and to help improve the lives of American families. Opponents of CAFE standards have argued that increased fuel efficiency will result in decreased vehicle safety. To the contrary, provisions to maintain vehicle safety are written directly into the language. Furthermore, by bringing SUVs and light trucks under the rubric of the CAFE standard, CAFE will without question save lives. Opponents also argued that CAFE standards hurt the American auto industry and American workers. In reality, a high fuel economy standard would put existing technologies into vehicles and spur technological innovation--something in which American industry is a proud leader. The CAFE proposal provided for gradual improvement in fuel economy over time, allowing manufacturers the opportunity to retool processes and redesign product lines over time. Consumer fuel savings and technological innovation will lead to an infusion of capital in local economies and investments in the auto industry, making U.S. vehicles competitive in a global market and creating--not destroying--jobs. The first time around, CAFE was created in response to rising oil prices. Today, volatility in the oil market continues to be a concern, along with our energy security and the environmental impact of fossil fuel emissions. We had before us an opportunity to alleviate threats to our national energy and economic security posed by foreign oil dependence, while protecting our environment and taking a positive step in the battle to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Now is the time to make these changes. I thank Senator Kerry and Senator McCain for their leadership on this issue. I want to add that I agree with my colleague from the Energy Committee, Senator Carper, who has suggested that we should--we must-- return to the issue of CAFE standards before we finish our work on this bill. Hopefully, we will all come to our senses.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. If the majority leader yield for a question, I thank the majority leader and my colleague Senator Murray. I am pleased to join her in support of this legislation. My colleague shares my concern over the serious situation in our State and throughout the Northwest. In Washington State alone 42,070 workers exhausted UI claims from September 11 through the beginning of March; and 14 of Washington's 39 counties have unemployment rates above ten percent. If this is not an emergency, I do not know what is. That's why we have insisted for months now that the Senate pass a simple unemployment insurance extension of at least 13 weeks. But, we do want to make explicitly clear how the bill will conform with state laws providing extended benefits, so that we preserve the intended purpose of this legislation. I cannot emphasize enough how pleased this Senator is to have this legislation is finally approaching enactment. I am extremely pleased that the House has finally come to the conclusion that need this 13- week Federal support, and has finally decided to do the right thing for our workers, and our nation as a whole. But we have meticulously worked to ensure that the language of this legislation would conform with the extended benefits offered by our State, so that one of the most heavily impacted States in the nation is able to fully benefit from what we're doing today. The distinguished majority leader worked very hard with us last year and earlier this year to craft language that would achieve this purpose. The language passed by this body in February made very clear that the temporary federal benefits would begin immediately after the 26th week, across the board. The UI provision is crafted in a less clear manner in the House bill, but I am aware that the House Ways and Means chairman yesterday expressed his intent in drafting that language that the federal benefit would begin before wholly State-financed benefits. We understand that the Department of Labor has promised to provide a letter of interpretation of the House-passed legislation that is expected to clarify these issues, and specifically, the technical order of benefits that workers will be expected to receive. This Senator urges the Secretary to get this assurance to us immediately, so that States can adequately plan to meet the needs of workers who have exhausted or will soon exhaust their benefits. While I am disappointed that the House language is not explicitly clear on this matter, as was the Senate bill, I am pleased to hear that the Department understands this intent and will interpret the language accordingly. We will closely be watching to ensure that the Secretary follows through on this commitment and puts the Department's priority where it should be--on providing as much assistance as possible to the areas of this Nation that desperately need it--and to providing it in a time frame that truly reflects the urgency of the situation. Again, I appreciate the phenomenal work of the majority leader and the entire Senate in doing its work on this bill months ago; and now that the House has finally come to the table, I urge that we move quickly to get it enacted and get extended benefits out to workers who need it most. At this time I ask the distinguished majority leader if it is his understanding that the intent of this legislation was to provide a Federal benefit immediately after regular state UI benefits, and I will yield back for his response.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to impress on my colleagues just how important this legislation is to the workers in the Nation who have borne the weight of this recession that was so exacerbated by the September 11 incidents. My colleagues have heard me say this again and again, but the Pacific Northwest has suffered extraordinarily in the past year. My State of Washington now has the dubious honor of having the second highest unemployment rate in the Nation, behind our neighboring State Oregon. We had a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 7.5 percent in January--and the insured unemployment rate is above 5 percent. I have analysts in my State who foresee a wave of layoff notices in the pipeline and estimate that the State is going to hit 8 percent unemployment when the February numbers come out later this month. Why is this the case? Well, we have a number of factors at work. I would like to give my colleagues a better understanding of the economic circumstances affecting my State. Even prior to the tragic events of September 11 and even prior to the recession that may have begun in the early months of last year, Washington's economy was facing hurdles. We have seen significant layoffs in aluminum, agriculture, and high technology--due to persistent droughts, the high cost of energy, massive reductions in timber harvests, and declining export markets. My State is the most trade dependent State in the Nation on a per- capita basis, and September 11 had a devastating impact on the aviation industry. In October, the Boeing Company announced that it will lay off an estimated 30,000 commercial division workers. Approximately 80 percent of those workers are located in the State of Washington. The first layoff of Boeing workers--nearly 4,000--occurred on December 14, and the company set a schedule of layoff notices for the following months that predicted twelve-to-fourteen hundred job cuts per month through June of this year. But it does not stop there. We have seen from previous recessions that when a Boeing worker is laid off, approximately two more jobs are lost further down the supply line. So where does that leave us? When all is said and done, we will probably have at least 40,000 layoffs in our State that will be attributable to the events surrounding September 11. Some projections suggest that the number may go as high as 65,000. I mentioned previously our statewide unemployment rate of 7.5 percent, but even more unsettling is the fact that 14 of Washington's 39 counties have unemployment rates above 10 percent. In Ferry County, we are facing 15.1 percent unemployment. That same figure is 13.3 percent in Franklin County, 16.8 percent in Adams, 12.1 in Chelan, 11.5 percent in Grays Harbor, and the topper is 17.1 percent in Klickitat. If this is not an emergency, I do not know what is. That is why we have insisted, for months now that the Senate pass a simple unemployment insurance extension of at least 13 weeks. It is extremely disconcerting for me to know that so many workers displaced after September 11 have already reached or are nearing the end of their benefits eligibility. Since September 11, about 1.3 million workers have exhausted their unemployment benefits throughout this Nation. In Washington State alone, more than 42,000 workers exhausted UI claims from September 11 through the beginning of March. And at the same time, heavily affected States and workforce areas throughout this Nation are running out of training dollars. That is why I and my colleagues have fought for emergency training dollars; that is why we have fought against cuts in WIA funding that were proposed in budget; and why we have fought for this temporary extension in UI benefits. This is about giving workers a chance to get back on their feet. It should also be our priority to invest in training those workers, so that we'll be ready with the highest-skilled workforce when we get the economy jump-started again. My State has taken an aggressive approach to retraining our workforce, and has invested State dollars to provide the necessary support for displaced workers to put food on the table while they get skills training. This is the direction that our Nation should be heading--and it is one that we should be encouraging as we finally take this step to get the federal aid to the States. With the help of the majority leader in February, we were able to pass a clean 13-week unemployment benefit extension that took into account the unique situation of States that have aggressively worked to provide more substantial benefits for displaced workers. The majority leader and his staff have been tremendously helpful in recognizing these concerns and ensuring that we were providing the maximum assistance to all States. I want to be clear, I am extremely pleased that the House has finally come to the conclusion that workers are desperate for this 13-week federal support, and has finally set politics aside to do the right thing for our workers, and our Nation as a whole. I have worked to ensure that the language of this legislation is consistent with the extended benefits offered by our State--so that one of the most heavily impacted States in the Nation is able to fully benefit from what we are doing today. I understand that the Department of Labor has promised to provide a letter of interpretation of the House-passed legislation that is expected to clarify these issues, and specifically, the technical order of benefits that workers will be expected to receive. I urge the Secretary to get this assurance to us immediately, so that our State can plan to meet the needs of workers who have exhausted or will soon exhaust their benefits. It was my intent, and I understand it was the expressed intent of the drafters in the House, to provide the 13-week temporary federal UI benefit immediately after the expiration of regular State unemployment insurance benefits--which is typically 26 weeks. While I am disappointed that the House language is not explicitly clear on this matter, as was the Senate bill, I am pleased to hear that the Department understands our intent and will reportedly carry out these provisions in keeping with that intent. I will be watching to ensure that the Secretary follows through on this commitment and puts the Department's priority where it should be-- on providing as much assistance as possible to the areas of this Nation that desperately need it--and to provide it in a timeframe that truly reflects the urgency of the situation. Again, I appreciate the phenomenal work of the majority leader and the entire Senate in doing its work on this bill months ago; and now that the House has finally come to the table, I urge that we move quickly to get it enacted and get extended benefits out to workers who need it most. Finally, I will add that I am pleased with the targeted business tax incentives contained in this stimulus package. By providing both bonus depreciation for capital investments, and increased write-offs for business losses, we encourage economic expansion and development. By giving workers the resources to invest in themselves through training, education and health care, we provide the means for this expansion. Additionally, I am pleased that this package contains the so-called tax extenders that promote research and development across so many industries in our country. The country is at an economic crossroads and the choices we make today will affect us for years. We must maintain our fiscal discipline and invest in the nation's future business, education and worker needs. The package we are approving today invests in the next generation of our economy as businesses recover from the weakened economy.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment and would like to take a few minutes to describe why this is so important. I have stood on this floor before and described an incident that occurred in my State just 3 years ago. In a park near Bellingham, WA, an aging pipeline burst, sending a blast of flames that engulfed two 10-year-old boys. Both of those boys died in that blast and one young man drowned after being overcome by fumes. But that incident wasn't the first, nor the last. This was only one of numerous pipeline accidents in the State of Washington, which has suffered 47 reported incidents and more than $10 million in property damage in just the 15 years from 1984 to 1999. I would like to think that many of those accidents could have been prevented if the agency responsible for regulating that industry had been more diligent. This week we begin a substantial debate about increasing the domestic supply of affordable energy, but a significant part of that debate hinges on the integrity and reliability of our Nation's energy infrastructure. And that debate must not overlook the critical importance of our citizens' safety as we work to secure and transport increasingly larger amounts of these resources. For many of us in this body, the issue of safety has hit close to home. We have seen the loss of human life; the devastation to families and communities; and the significant property damage associated with mismanagement of our pipeline infrastructure. But this is not simply about the personal tragedies in our states. The tremendous efforts to finally pass this legislation--by the sponsor of the pipeline safety bill, Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, my colleague Senator Murray, and so many others--are based on a continuing pattern of oversight failures by the Office of Pipeline Safety. Many of my colleagues have already referenced the June 2000 report by the GAO, which found persistent failures by OPS to implement congressional mandates. That report indicated that in 22 of 49 cases, OPS ignored congressional direction and failed to follow statutory requirements. And since 1990, our Nation has suffered literally hundreds of pipeline-related deaths. Now, we have more than 2.2 million miles of pipelines traversing this nation, carrying almost all of the natural gas and 65 percent of the crude oil and refined oil products. Obviously, we don't want to hinder the effective transportation of these products that are so critical to our national economy. But we can and must do a better job of ensuring the public safety. My colleague Senator Murray has been instrumental in the ongoing efforts to improve the public disclosure of pipeline information. Obviously we need to employ common sense in restricting access to information that poses a real national security threat to our communities and our nation--but I believe that we must apply the highest standards in assessing those security risks and providing the most complete information possible to our public safety officials and to the public at large, so that they can take steps to protect their own communities from potential disasters. This amendment seeks to balance these equally important objectives-- security and public disclosure--that are both intended to enhance the public safety. I am also pleased that this amendment maintains a critical provision that I had worked to pass along with my colleagues, Senator Corzine, Senator Torricelli, and Senator Murray, which would ensure the assessments of nearly all pipeline systems at least once every 5 years. This is an issue of tremendous importance if we are going to make real strides in prevention of accidents. If we do not know the fundamental state of integrity of these systems and facilities, we cannot identify real threats to our communities. We passed this legislation by a wide margin last year and the other body has failed to finish the job. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and finally getting the job done to better protect our constituents, and better protect our fuel supply.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I, too, rise in support of this very important legislation, the Feinstein-Cantwell-Wyden energy derivatives legislation. I thank my colleagues for articulating the importance passing this amendment. It is no secret that the States of California, Oregon, and Washington have been greatly impacted by the high prices of energy that our consumers are still paying and that have had a very negative impact on our economies. That is why this legislation is so important. I applaud Senator Feinstein for her hard work in driving this legislation. Basically, this amendment closes a very dangerous loophole, which was actually created by Congress and which Enron may have used--I say ``may'' have used--to turn political influence into profit at the expense of consumers. That is why we must act today. The Enron loophole created by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act actually allowed Enron Online and other companies like it to sell futures behind closed doors, without the regulatory oversight or the safeguards that this nation's ratepayers deserve. At its core, our amendment allows the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to treat energy futures like all other regulated commodity futures. It does not give the CFTC any new powers that it does not already have when it is regulating other futures markets. This is a very important point. Our amendment places currently unregulated energy futures trading exchanges, such as Enron Online, under the CFTC's regulatory authority. Closing this loophole, as Senator Feinstein said, has the support of many organizations, such as NYMEX, Calpine, and Cambridge Energy Research Associates. But more importantly, consumers are counting on us. The Consumers Union, the Consumers Federation, and Public Interest Research Group all support this amendment. They support it for one very basic reason: They support it because it requires open books and transparency for markets that currently operate in secret. It is important because if there have been patterns of irregular energy trading, we want those patterns to be found and made abundantly clear. What we are saying is that there should not be special rules for Enron. If agricultural products, minerals, and even certain other types of energy futures transactions are regulated by there CFTC, there is no good reason we should allow online energy trading exchanges to operate in the dark. After all we have learned about Enron, shouldn't it be clear to all that exposing its trading activities to the light of day is essential? Closing the loopholes will open books and require transparency. It will give us the ability to do important things like compare Enron Online prices to competitors, compare forward markets with physical market pricing, and investigate the books of online traders to search for what those potential irregularities might be. Being able to answer these questions will be incredibly valuable in reinforcing the strength and integrity of our energy markets. Why is this so important to the State of Washington? Many people may not realize that Enron continues to hold gigantic long-term contracts with utilities throughout the country, at least $900 million worth in my home State. We are now learning that these contracts may have been the result of market manipulation by Enron. In one case alone, the Bonneville Power Administration has long-term contracts with Enron of over $700 million. At today's market price, those contracts would only cost $350 million. That means BPA--and that means, ultimately, Washington state ratepayers, who have to pay for those energy costs are paying Enron about $350 million more than the current market value. Contracts like these have translated into unacceptably high utility bills for ratepayers throughout the West who deserve relief as soon as possible. That is why I have joined my colleagues in urging FERC to investigate and determine whether Enron manipulated these energy prices in the West, and if so, make sure that if these contracts are unjust and unreasonable, our consumers are let out of having to pay these high prices for the next 3 to 5 years. Until we change this and require open books and transparency from Enron Online and businesses similar to it, the public will not be protected in the future for having the same kind of market manipulations, perhaps, happen to them. That is why passing this legislation is so important. We have to close the Enron loophole and restore the faith that the public needs to have in our energy markets-- the faith that consumers deserve. They deserve to know that these entities are being regulated and are operating in the light of day. I again thank my colleague from California who has worked so diligently on this important legislation, which is a key part of our energy strategy. We need to make sure and consumers need to believe that we are on the right track. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Senators Dodd, McConnell, Schumer, and Bond for their dedication and diligence in addressing what I believe to be an issue of critical importance to our country--protecting voting rights and ensuring the integrity of the electoral system in our nation. Especially given the events in the world today, making certain that each citizen's vote is counted and promoting public trust and confidence in our election process is crucial. The State of Washington has a long and trusted history as a leader in election administration. Through great efforts and cooperation, the state has pioneered such programs as motor voter, provisional balloting, vote by mail, and absentee voting. I thank Senator Dodd, the chairman of the Rules Committee for his support for an amendment that I offered with Senator Murray's support that has been adopted. The amendment guarantees that States are able to continue using mail-in voting, while also providing new safeguards to make mail-in voters aware of how to properly fill out their ballots, and how, if needed to obtain a replacement. Voters in my State are proud of our system that offers voters the option of voting by mail or in the polling place, and they are extremely committed to seeing it continue. The mail-in ballot, in my opinion, offers voters several advantages. First, it allows voters to cast their ballots on their own time and at their own convenience. It also allows voters to make more informed choices, as they are able to consult literature sent by the state and by the campaigns in making their decisions. Because these votes are cast without the pressure of other voters waiting in line, or without the time crunch of being late to work or to pick up the kids, voters are also less likely to make mistakes that will disqualify their ballots. In addition, the mail-in system is very secure. Each ballot that is cast by mail requires, that the voter sign the outer envelope. This signature is then checked against the voters signature that is kept on file and only when there is agreement that the signatures match is the ballot counted. Washington State has consistently increased the number of voters choosing to vote by mail and through provisional voting without any allegations that these types of voting have involved fraud or other misconduct. In fact, the procedures in place have consistently ensured the integrity and security of our elections and led to public confidence in our system that is unparalleled anywhere in the country. It has not always been this way. In the early 1990s, we had several close elections that pointed out the vulnerabilities in our system. These close elections led Washington to become one of the first states to adopt statewide guidelines that ensured that each jurisdiction followed the same rules in determining how ballots are verified and counted. In addition, my State also adopted other requirements for testing and procedural consistency. It is my hope that this legislation will lead other States to follow our example and institute similar guidelines and procedures that will result in more people voting and making sure that all votes are properly cast and counted. Our challenge, at the federal level, is to ensure that in passing legislation that reduces hurdles to civic participation across in country, we respect the role of the States in selecting types of voting that work well for their citizens and lead to maximum participation. I believe that this bill as amended does that, and I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his commitment to this bill and to ensuring that States have the flexibility to keep their systems in place. This bill, by setting minimum standards and by guaranteeing the Federal Government will provide the funds necessary to purchase new equipment, takes very important steps forward in guaranteeing to every American that not only do they have the right to vote, but that when they cast their vote it will be counted.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Schumer-Wyden amendment because I believe it is a critical issue that we must solve before we can pass this bill. Millions of people in my State, and I think across America, will be done a great disservice by making voting harder. If we do not pass this amendment, the bill as currently written forces States to rely on a photo identification as a means of making sure that first-time voters are who they say they are. While I believe we need to be vigilant about preventing fraud in our elections, the provision as currently written goes too far in mandating a particular response and has the real potential to result in fewer legitimate voters having their votes counted. This bill requires voters who registered by mail to show a photo identification or utility bill when they go to the polls for the first time. This will create a disincentive for seniors, disabled, and those who have a tough time getting that information. In our State, 64 percent of the voters in the most recent election voted by absentee ballot or mail-in ballot. Requiring a photo identification or utility bill to be enclosed with their ballots is an incredible burden in order to prove they are who they say they are. In fact, in those cases where those copies were not provided, their votes would not be counted. It is very important we look at the underlying system. The underlying system, based on signature verification, makes sure that people who are attesting under the penalty of perjury are who they say they are and that they are properly registered to vote in that jurisdiction. When the ballot is received, the signature is carefully checked against the registration rolls to make sure they are a match. Only then is the ballot counted. Unlike the signature, the election official receiving the photocopy has nothing to compare it against, and it is of no use in verifying the authenticity of the vote. Although the photocopy has little use to officials, if it is not included, as I said, it disqualifies the ballot. That is correct--if the voter fails to include a photocopy that is of no use to the election official, the vote will still not be counted even though the signature on the ballot matches the signature in the registration rolls. This is simply unacceptable. This amendment fixes this problem by allowing states the option of relying on other methods to make certain that votes are valid, including signature verification which is currently used in my state and other states. While I am very concerned about passing this amendment to fix the problems that photo ID requirements create for voters who vote by mail, I am also concerned that the requirements will lead to serious problems for voters who go to the polls. The Secretary of State and other election officials in my State are concerned that the requirements place a huge burden on volunteer poll workers in the polling place, and a Federal court has already ruled that this type of photo ID requirement may present a disparate impact on minorities seeking to have their votes counted. The right to vote is the most important right that we have as citizens, and it is important that we do everything that we can to make certain States can strike the proper balance between facilitating voting and preventing fraud. This amendment helps to do that. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I believe that passage of this amendment is essential to making certain that our electoral system is improved by this legislation. I yield the remainder of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Dodd's strong commitment to this legislation. Together with Senator Murray I also appreciate his efforts here today to work with us on language that preserves the ability of States like ours, that have high volumes of absentee and mail-in voters, to continue to use those mail in systems. This amendment adds to the voting system standards section of the legislation to make sure that the ability of voters to vote by mail-in and absentee ballot is not limited by our efforts to improve the ability of other voters to cast accurate ballots in the polling place. This system is very important. The voters of my State are proud of this system and extremely committed to seeing it continue. In addition, I believe the voting by mail adequately protects against the types of problems encountered in Florida because in these elections voters take their time in casting their votes and are able to consult instructions and other ballot information. Voters in my State have made it clear that they are willing to work with the system but want to make sure mail-in ballots and absentee ballots are preserved. This amendment preserves the ability to vote by mail while also setting forth new safeguards that will better inform voters how to correctly fill out their ballot and ensure their votes are counted. I thank the leaders of this legislation for their support for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Enhanced border Security Act of 2001. We must take the long term steps to strengthen the security at our borders. I want to commend my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Feinstein, Brownback and Kyl, for their tireless work to address border security issues. The bill we will be voting on today, the Enhanced Border Security Act of 2001, was a product of the thoughtful merging of two bills. As an original cosponsor of Senators Kennedy and Brownback's initial version of this bill, I have worked closely with the four principal sponsors to integrate the best of each of these two pieces of legislation, and have been very please with the outcome of this effort. This bill addresses what I consider to be one of the most important issues in our fight against terorism--how we can effectively secure our borders from terrorists. This bill address border security by increasing the number of border patrol and immigration personnel at the borders; improving the quality and sharing of identity information; improving the screening of foreign nations seeking to enter the U.S. on visas; and improving awareness of the comings and goings of these foreign nationals as they enter or exit our country. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been honored to work closely with Senators Kennedy and Feinstein to find ways to better protect our borders and provide necessary support to the men and women who work for the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Agency. I, along with many of my colleagues, am currently pressing for funding to triple the number of Immigration and Naturalization Service and U.S. Customs personnel on our northern border and improve border technology, the authorization for which was included in the USA Patriot Act. In the past, a severe lack of resources at our northern border has compromise the ability of border control officials to execute their duties. I am pleased that Congress made the tripling of these resources a priority for national security, and I will continue to fight for full funding of this measure. This bill also addresses these needs by increasing INS inspectors and border patrol staffing each by 200 persons per year for the fiscal year 2002-2006. The bill also authorizes $150 million in spending for improving technology and facilities at our borders. The Enhanced Border Security Act of 2001 addresses several other critical issues. In hearings this session before the Immigration Subcommittee and the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee, as well as the full Judiciary Committee, we heard repeated calls for better sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information as it relates to admitting aliens into the United States. The bill addresses this problem by mandating INS and Department of State access to relevant FBI information within one year. I am pleased that the authors of the bill have included provisions to protect the privacy and security of this information, and require limitations on the use and repeated dissemination of the information. Two of the most important provisions of this legislation address international cooperation in enhancing border security. Protecting U.S. borders requires the assistance and cooperation of our closest allies. Indeed, we share an interest in protecting our respective borders. Citizens of several countries, including most European countries, Japan and Canada, can enter the U.S. without visas. And this is as it should be. But the U.S. must, with new urgency, continue to engage Canada, Mexico and other countries that may be interested in sharing law enforcement and intelligence information to protect our respective borders. We must improve information sharing, and must improve the technology to make sure information is shared with the right people and in a timely manner. In October, we passed a major anti-terrorism bill that contained a number of provisions that will enable our law enforcement community and the intelligence community to obtain and share vital information regarding persons who are a threat to the U.S. One of the most important new tools I was pleased to have had included in USA Patriot Act is a requirement that State and Justice develop a visa technology standard to help secure our border and make certain each individual who seeks entry into our country on a visa is the person he or she claims to be and there is no known reason to keep that person out. We must work with our allies to take advantage of this technology standard to improve interoperability on an international scale. We should do what we can to eliminate technological barriers to information-sharing regarding dangerous individuals and to address our mutual concern for border security. To this end, this bill requires the Department of State to report to Congress within six months on how best we can undertake ``perimeter'' screening with our partners, Canada and Mexico. Further, the bill requires the Department of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Office of Homeland Security to report to Congress within 90 days on how best to facilitate sharing of information that may be relevant to determining whether to issue a U.S. visa. Our borders are only as secure as the borders of those countries whose citizens we allow into our country without a visa. The provisions we have achieved in the USA Patriot Act laid the foundation for more specific provisions to assure the best use of technology to improve the security at our borders. This bill fulfills the promise of the USA Patriot Act to assure information sharing will be thoughtfully implemented in short order. With the enactment of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, the federal government committed to developing a visa technology standard that would facilitate the sharing of information related to the admissibility of aliens into the United States. I proposed this language recognizing that, for many years, the U.S law enforcement and intelligence communities have maintained numerous, but separate, non- interoperable databases. These databases are not easily or readily accessible to front-line federal agents responsible for making the critical decisions of whether to issue a visa or to admit an alien into the United States. To build on and fulfill the goals of establishing this standard, this bill will do three things. First, it will require technology be implemented to track the initial entry and exit of aliens travelling on a U.S. visa. We know now that several of the terrorists who attacked America on September 11th were traveling on expired visas. We have had the law in place for several years now, but due to concerns about maintaining the flow of trade and tourism across our borders--concerns I share--the provisions of Section 110 have not been fully implemented. Technology will address those concerns, allowing electronic recordation and verification of entry and exit data in an instant. Second, I believe it is necessary to require the Department of State and Justice to work with the Office of Homeland Security to build a cohesive electronic data sharing system. The system must incorporate interoperability and compatibility within and between the databases of the various agencies that maintain information relevant to determining whether a visa should be issued or whether an alien should be admitted into the United States. This legislation will require interoperable real-time sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information relevant to the issuance of a visa or an alien's admissibility to the U.S. The provision will require that information is made available, although with the appropriate safeguards for privacy and the protection of intelligence sources, to the front-line government agents making the decisions to issue visas or to admit visa-holding aliens to the United States. Keeping terrorists out of the U.S. in the first place will reduce the risks of terrorism within the U.S. in the future. Aliens known to be affiliated with terrorists have been admitted to the U.S. on valid visas simply because one agency in government did not share important information with another department in a timely fashion. We must make sure that this does not happen again. Until now, we had hoped that agencies would voluntarily share this information on a realtime and regular basis. This has not happened, and although I know that the events of September 11 have led to serious rethinking of our information-sharing processes and procedures, I think it is time to mandate the sharing of fundamental information. Advancements in technology have provided us with additional tools to verify the identity of individuals entering our country without impairing the flow of legitimate trade, tourism, workers and students. It is time we put these tools to use. Improving our national security is vitally important, but I will not support measures that compromise America's civil liberties. The bill we are voting on today includes a number of safeguards to protect individuals' rights to privacy. The bill provides that where databases are created or shared, there must be protection of privacy and adequate security measures in place, limitations on the use and re-dissemination of information, and mechanisms for removing obsolete or erroneous information. Even in times of urgent action, we must protect the freedoms that make our country great. I urge a favorable vote.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I rise to join my colleague from the State of Washington to discuss this matter.

Ms. CANTWELL. The opportunity has been presented to the Air Force and the Boeing company to come together to make this leasing provision work for the benefit of our national security and our industrial base. I urge them to do so quickly and cooperatively.

Ms. CANTWELL. Of equal importance is the need to support our commercial and military industrial base in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The provision included in the fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill will allow the Air Force to meet a pressing military need and ensure continued, strong demand for the Boeing 767 aircraft. In this regard, it is my understanding that the provision included in the bill permits the leasing of up to 100 purpose Boeing 767 aircraft in a commercial configuration for up to 10 years. Is that correct?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I add my congratulations to the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for their hard work on a very important piece of legislation. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter by Air Force Chief of Staff John Jumper and Secretary of the Air Force James Roche basically explaining in detail their need for the 767 tanker fleet and why the activities and events after September 11 have accelerated the interest in the replacement options that were a part of this legislation. December 18, 2001. Editor-in-Chief, The Washington Post, Washington, DC.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record information about how the DOD process for reviewing the need for the 767 tanker replacement was started over 2 years ago, culminating in a report and analysis of, February 2001 that these tankers were in fact needed and not done behind closed doors but the process was followed.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Lugar amendment to the Farm bill before us and to express my strong support for the nutrition provisions included in the underlying bill as introduced by Senator Harkin. I want to make it clear that while I appreciate Senator Lugar's investment in food stamps and food nutrition programs, I oppose the Lugar provisions on the commodity title because it undermines a crucial safety net for our Nation's farmers. These commodity assistance programs are vital to the competitiveness and survival of the U.S. farming base and the rural communities that depend on a healthy agricultural economy. I applaud Senator Lugar's attention to the need to expand the Food Stamp Program in this difficult economic time. The Food Stamp Program is one of the most effective and efficient ways we directly help low- income families, and the elderly and disabled. The language in Senator Harkin's bill will make this important program more efficient and effective for those who rely on it most. There is no doubt that the economy is weaker than it was at this time last year--or even this summer when we passed President Bush's tax cuts. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, announced on Monday that the country has a $63 billion deficit in the first 2 months of the new fiscal year. CBO's report attributes most of the extra spending to increased Medicaid costs and unemployment benefit claims. This does not surprise me, especially when one considers these indicators of the current state of Washington's economy: Unemployment rose a half-point in October to reach 6.6 percent in the State--the highest rate in the Nation; new claims filed for unemployment insurance claims rose 33 percent over the same month last year; we now have the highest number of initial unemployment insurance claims since 1981; and unfortunately, one of our strongest and most stable employers--Boeing-- has announced that 14,000 of its workers in Washington State are going to be out of a job by next summer. This news is absolutely devastating for my State--according to the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, for every Boeing job lost the region loses another 1.7 jobs. There is no doubt that our economy works best when people are working. But when people lose their jobs, they need help to manage their unemployment, train for new jobs, and make an easy transition to new careers. And this includes broad-based assistance to families, especially through the food stamp and other Federal nutrition programs. If families are hungry and not meeting their basic needs, they certainly cannot focus on the training they need to attain long-term stability and self-sufficiency. I believe that strengthening the Food Stamp Program to assist low- wage workers and those recently out of work is a critical component of Congress's response to the weakening economy. Unfortunately, as the economy deteriorates many working families are joining the lines at local food banks. Just this week, the Seattle Times reported on the food shortages in our area food banks and the fact that so many families are now seeking assistance from the very food banks to which they once donated. In fact, food stamp participation in Washington State increased over the last 12 months by 8.2 percent. But I am particularly concerned about those who are eligible for food stamps but do not use them since we passed the 1996 welfare reform legislation, food stamp participation rate decreased 32.2 percent in Washington State. Sadly, the percentage of households with children facing food insecurity--those who do not know where their next meal is coming from--is higher in Washington State than across the rest of the country. And food insecurity among emergency food recipients--those going to food banks, to emergency kitchens and shelters--is nearly 50 percent higher in Washington than the rest of the country. And this is despite the fact that over 315,000 people in the State of Washington participate in the Food Stamp Program, and 153,000 people participate in the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, Program. I strongly support the nutrition provisions in the underlying bill. In order to address the increasing need for food stamp and other Federal nutrition support, Senator Harkin has increased mandatory food stamp spending by $6.2 billion over the next 10 years. The Harkin Farm bill provides an extension for transitional food stamps for families moving from welfare to work; extension of benefits for adults without dependents; and increased funding for the employment and training program. The bill would allow households with children to set aside larger amounts of income before the food stamp benefits would begin to phase out. Importantly, the bill simplifies the program for State administrators and participating families. Specifically, it simplifies income and resource counting, calculation of expenses for deductions, and determination of ongoing eligibility in the program. Together, these improvements will help both States and recipients because they lower burdens and increase coordination with other programs, such as Medicare, TANF, and child care, that the States administer. I am particularly pleased that the bill restores food stamp benefits for all legal immigrant children and persons with disabilities. According to Census data, 27 percent of children in poverty live in immigrant families, 21 percent are citizen children of immigrant parents, and 6 percent are immigrants themselves. Unfortunately, many citizen children of legal immigrants who remain eligible for the Food Stamp Program are not participating. Many of their families are confused about food stamp eligibility rules, and in some cases, the child's benefit is too small for the household to invest the effort to maintain eligibility. In fact, since 1994, over 1 million citizen children with immigrant parents have left the program despite remaining eligible. After the Federal Government eliminated food stamp benefits for legal immigrants Washington State was the first State to put its own funds toward restoring food stamp eligibility for legal immigrants. The State Food Assistance Program uses State funds to support legal immigrants who were disqualified as a result of the 1996 welfare reform law. In fact, 11 percent of all food assistance clients in WA State are legal immigrants. This bill restores the Federal commitment to ensuring that legal immigrants have access to these important Federal programs. When we passed President Bush's tax cut, I said that I believed the country is at a critical juncture in setting our fiscal priorities-- deciding between maintaining our fiscal discipline and investing in the Nation's future education and health care needs, or cutting the very services used daily by our citizens. That statement is even more relevant today. Passing the food stamp expansions included in the Harkin Farm bill gives working families struggling to make ends meet the security they need in these uncertain times.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today, along with my distinguished colleagues Senator Murray from Washington State and Senator Inouye from Hawaii in support of two amendments to the Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001 to promote cooperation between Indian tribes and the United States Forest Service in the management of forest lands. This legislation would amend the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 to establish an Office of Tribal Relations and other cooperative programs within the Forest Service to better provide for the joint efforts of the Forest Service and Indian tribes. If the purpose of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act is to improve the management, resource production, and environmental protection of nonfederal forest lands, then the 17 million acres of land held by Indian tribes and individual Indians should be included as a component of this law to facilitate cooperative management of our forests. Tribes have a significant role to play towards our national goal of ensuring that forests are managed as both sustainable resources and enduring habitats. Again, tribes or tribal members are responsible for the management of approximately 17 million acres of forest land, which is eligible for about 750 million board feet of sustainable annual harvest. Much of this land shares borders with Forest Service land, and tribes also possess treaty rights within Forest Service land. The Forest Service and tribes are linked not only by common interest but also by a very practical need to work together. Currently tribes may participate in the Forestry Incentives and Forest Stewardship programs under sections 4 through 6 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act. These programs provide assistance to private landowners in order to keep their forest land healthy and viable. However, the programs are designed for cooperation with State governments and do not appropriately take into account the government- to-government and trust relationships that tribes have with the Federal Government. Also, there is general lack of understanding among tribes and Forest Service personnel regarding how the existing cooperative assistance programs would extend to individual Indians with land held in trust. As a result, tribes and individual American Indian and Native Alaskan landowners seldom participate in the programs. In October 1999, the Chief of the Forest Service established a National Tribal Relations Task Force to study tribal involvement in the management of both Forest Service and Indian-held lands. The Task Force included representatives from the Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, and the Intertribal Timber Council. The Task Force found that, indeed, cooperative forestry programs that specifically work with tribal communities are greatly in need in order to establish equity in forestry assistance and to fulfill stewardship responsibilities towards the management of forestry lands held in trust. This legislation responds to the need to improve tribal-Forest Service coordination by allowing the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to provide financial, technical, and educational assistance for coordination on shared land, land under the jurisdiction of Indian tribes, and Forest Service land to which tribes may have interests and rights. The Task Force similarly found, and I quote directly from the report, that ``the current Forest Service tribal relations program lacks the infrastructure and support necessary to ensure high quality interactions across programs with Indian Tribes on a government-to- government basis.'' My colleagues and I would like to improve the Forest Service's ability to interact effectively with tribes by adding an Office of Tribal Relations within the Forest Service to be headed by a Director appointed by the Chief of the Forest Service. This office will be responsible for the oversight of all programs and policies relating to tribes. This legislation outlines that it would be the duty of the Office of Tribal Relations to consult with tribal governments, monitor and evaluate the relations between tribal governments and the Forest Service, and coordinate matters affecting tribes in a way that is comprehensive and responsive to tribal needs. This office will also cooperate with the other agencies of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency. It is important that the Forest Service be able to effectively work with tribal communities. At this point, we know from the Forest Service, the BIA, and the Intertribal Timber Council that the Forest Service lacks the programmatic structure to be able to accommodate and effectively work with tribes and those holding trust lands due to their unique legal and organizational status. As an arm of the Federal Government, the Forest Service must uphold the trust responsibilities we have towards tribes. I believe that we have a duty, to tribes and to our forests, to respond to tribes' expressed desire for assistance with forest resource planning, management, and conservation with this legislation. I would like to thank Senator Daschle, Senator Baucus, and Senator Wellstone for their support, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support these amendments as well.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I, too, rise with my colleague, the Senator from Washington, who has done an outstanding job on the Appropriations Committee to steer this issue through the process which is both sound policy and very important for the State of Washington. I also thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Inouye, and the ranking member for understanding the complexity of this problem. What is at hand is a bipartisan effort where the committee has recognized the glaring Achilles' heel in our Nation's military preparedness. They developed a creative solution. We currently have an air fleet that is older than most of the pilots who fly them. With 546 air tankers in the fleet, the average age is 36 years, and the oldest plane is over 45. These planes were initially designed to have a 25- year lifespan. They are showing extreme wear and tear. My colleague from Kansas entered into the Record a letter that shows the military, while being open and flexible, thought this idea was a sound way to provide tankers. Obviously, the amount of wear and tear on the aging tanker fleet is causing a lot of problems and increased maintenance costs. Indeed, the Air Force is projecting a 42-percent increase--over $3 billion--in the next 30 years for maintenance in this area. Compounding the problem is the decreased availability in a time of increased demand. We are also not just facing issues overseas, as mentioned by my colleague from Washington, but also a new mission on the homeland front in our Nation's security--defending our Nation's airspace. That requires the use of these crucial tankers. Without effective tanker force, our air superiority is wrecked. This is a creative solution at a time when the need is great. I urge my colleagues to support this great bipartisan and common effort.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in opposition to the Murkowski-Lott-Brownback amendment, which would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--America's last untouched wildlife refuge--to oil development. It is both untimely to try to include such a controversial issue in an unrelated Railroad Retirement bill, and unwise to exploit this time of economic downturn and national security challenges to open up ANWR for the sake of narrow and divisive interests. I believe there is no way to justify drilling in ANWR in the name of national security. Oil extracted from the refuge would not reach refineries for seven to ten years and would never satisfy more than two percent of our nation's oil demands at any one time. Therefore, it would have no discernible short- or long-term impact on the price of fuel or our increasing dependence on OPEC imports. Put another way, the amount of economically recoverable oil would increase our domestic reserves by only one third of one percent, which would not even make a significant dent on our imports, much less influence world prices set by OPEC. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would also set a terrible precedent. In the past 35 years, ever since Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the government has not approved a single oil or gas exploration lease on public refuge lands. My concern is that opening up ANWR in the name of a misleading and irresponsible national security argument will not only degrade one of America's national treasures, but will also expose other priceless public lands to new drilling. Mr. President, rather than drilling in ANWR, we must focus on crafting a deliberative, comprehensive policy that will permanently strengthen our national security. We need a bill that endows America with a strong and independent 21st century energy system by recognizing fuel diversity, energy efficiency, distributed generation, and environmentally sound domestic production as the permanent solutions to our nation's enduring energy needs. The energy provisions included in the Murkowski-Lott amendment fail to meet these goals and would instead prolong our antiquated over-reliance on traditional fossil fuels. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee on which I serve held a series of hearings earlier this year that highlighted particularly promising ways we can accomplish these crucial goals. For example, these hearings revealed a broad consensus on the need to streamline regulatory approval of a privately funded natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 states. There are at least 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in existing Alaskan fields and building a pipeline to the continental U.S. would create thousands of jobs, provide a huge opportunity for the steel industry, and help prevent our nation from becoming dependent on foreign natural gas, from many of the same Middle Eastern countries from which we import oil. Adopting energy efficient technologies is another way to significantly advance our national and economic security. For example, are my colleagues aware that automakers commonly use low-friction tires on new cars to help them comply with fuel economy standards? Because there are no standards or efficiency labels for replacement tires, however, most consumers unwittingly purchase less efficient tires when their originals wear out, even though low-friction tires would only cost a few dollars more per tire and would save the average American driver $100 worth of fuel over the 40,000-mile life of the tires. Fully phased in, better replacement tires would cut gasoline consumption of all U.S. vehicles by about three percent, saving our nation over five billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. That's the same amount the United States Geological Survey says could be economically recovered from ANWR. I believe that the only way to permanently ensure our nation's security is to look beyond policies that continue our country's century-old reliance on the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. Now is the time to launch the transition to a new, 21st century system of distributed generation based on renewable energy sources and environmentally responsible fuel cells. Imagine if today a significant portion of American homes and businesses produced their own electricity from solar panels on their roofs, and powered their cars with home-grown biofuels. Our country would no longer be at the mercy of OPEC, energy bills would be dramatically lower, our air would be cleaner, and our energy system could not be devastated by terrorist attacks on centralized power plants or transmission lines. Mr. President, the American people know this is the direction our country must take. Just last month a Gallup Poll showed that 91 percent of Americans believe we should invest in new sources of energy such as solar, wind, and fuel cells. Ninety-one percent. How often do we see such universal support in our politically diverse country? Mr. President, only these policies--which will be well represented in the energy bill Senators Daschle and Bingaman will bring to the floor early next year--will make our energy system truly secure and independent. I recognize, along with probably all of my colleagues, that inexpensive, reliable energy sources are the lifeblood of our economy and higher standard of living. Because our national, economic, and environmental security depend on the United States becoming less dependent on imported fossil fuels, we must act to develop more diverse and environmentally responsible supplies of domestic energy. Neither drilling in ANWR nor the rest of Murkowski-Lott energy provisions go far enough to accomplish these goals, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against invoking cloture on this amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Corzine and Snowe to introduce the Microbicides Development Act of 2001, and to recognize tomorrow, December 1, as World AIDS Day. As we reflect on the last 20 years of battling this disease, we need to remember the thousands of people here in the United States and the millions worldwide afflicted by HIV and AIDS. It is hard to believe that it has been 20 years since we first learned of the disease that would come to be known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or AIDS. In those 20 years medical and pharmaceutical advancements have made HIV/AIDS more manageable for some, but a cure is yet to be found. And in those 20 years since we first learned of AIDS we have begun to see a changing face of AIDS across the country, as well as in my home State of Washington. Consider these facts. Twenty years ago, HIV infections attributed to sex between gay men accounted for nearly all HIV/AIDS cases in the country. Today, more than half-- 54 percent--of HIV infections are in different population groups: straight or bisexual women, or straight men. In fact, between the beginning of the AIDS epidemic and today, the proportion of women newly infected with HIV more than tripled-- from 7 percent to 23 percent. Twenty years ago, HIV infections were primarily appearing in Caucasians. Today, HIV/AIDS is disproportionately affecting communities of color. Approximately two-thirds of all women and over 40 percent of all men reported with AIDS were black. Although Hispanics represent 13 percent of the population, they accounted for 19 percent of new HIV infections in 1999. And one in four Washingtonians infected with HIV is under aged 22. Half are under 25. These are people that have grown up with the disease--they should be educated on prevention and they should know how to take care of themselves. But somehow complacency--whether from the new drugs and medical treatment--or from disease ennui--has replaced the message we want to be sending. We have long known that the only way to stop the advance of this terrible disease is through a coordinated and comprehensive approach to education, prevention and treatment. As a community we need to refocus our efforts and not allow complacency--especially among populations not traditionally associated with HIV/AIDS --to dictate the future. There must be a continued commitment to he eradication of this terrible disease. Before the end of today, several hundred people will become infected with AIDS. In these days of fear of Anthrax and discussions of bioterrorism we should not loose sight of the worst natural pandemic in human history. Twenty years after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first identified AIDS, I am afraid that this vast tragedy has become a little too familiar, and we may have become a little too complacent. The HIV/AIDS epidemic rages on, from Asia and Eastern Europe to the Caribbean and most tragically Africa. As AIDS has become an international crisis, its face has become that of humanity itself. I fear that AIDS may become the single greatest obstacle to global development humanity has ever faced. And while it is easy to become discouraged in the face of such a huge, heartbreaking calamity--the truth is we know how to stop the spread of AIDS. Through a coordinated and comprehensive program of education, prevention and treatment, we know that the epidemic can be greatly reduced in scope. To that end, I'm proud to join Senator Corzine in sponsoring the Microbicides Development Act of 2001. This bill increases authorization of funding for microbicide research at the National Institutes of Health and the CDC. Microbicides represent a novel and virtually unexplored area in STD/ HIV research. Microbicides can kill or inactivate the bacteria and viruses that cause STDs and AIDS. Despite their huge potential, microbicide research is underrepresented in the federal HIV research portfolio. Currently, Microbicide development represents only one percent of federal research in HIV/AIDS. Microbicides are unique in that they are under development as topical products--a cream or gel. This gives them a high degree of versatility and user control. This is especially important for women who are unable to or cannot ask their partner to use a condom to prevent spreading HIV. Development of a dependable, affordable and easy to use microbicide would represent a major breakthrough in AIDS prevention-- allowing populations like commercial sex workers to have more control over their own bodies. It is extremely important to prevent HIV transmission and serve women, a population increasingly at risk for HIV infection. Microbicide development is a fertile but unexplored anti-HIV research area. Pharmaceutical companies have generally concentrated on high return disease treatments and government-sponsored vaccine programs. While there are potential microbicides in the research and development pipeline, this bill encourages the pursuit of these promising compounds by increasing authorization for the current federal investment in microbial research in the next fiscal year. Through this bill, we will emphasize the work at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop products to prevent the transmission of AIDS for women. I can think of no new direction in AIDS prevention that has a larger potential--we know that the best preventatives must be easy to use and controlled by the user. I expect that microbicides will fill a new role in preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS. I thank Senator Corzine for his leadership on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Corzine and Snowe to introduce the Microbicides Development Act of 2001, and to recognize tomorrow, December 1, as World AIDS Day. As we reflect on the last 20 years of battling this disease, we need to remember the thousands of people here in the United States and the millions worldwide afflicted by HIV and AIDS. It is hard to believe that it has been 20 years since we first learned of the disease that would come to be known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or AIDS. In those 20 years medical and pharmaceutical advancements have made HIV/AIDS more manageable for some, but a cure is yet to be found. And in those 20 years since we first learned of AIDS we have begun to see a changing face of AIDS across the country, as well as in my home State of Washington. Consider these facts. Twenty years ago, HIV infections attributed to sex between gay men accounted for nearly all HIV/AIDS cases in the country. Today, more than half-- 54 percent--of HIV infections are in different population groups: straight or bisexual women, or straight men. In fact, between the beginning of the AIDS epidemic and today, the proportion of women newly infected with HIV more than tripled-- from 7 percent to 23 percent. Twenty years ago, HIV infections were primarily appearing in Caucasians. Today, HIV/AIDS is disproportionately affecting communities of color. Approximately two-thirds of all women and over 40 percent of all men reported with AIDS were black. Although Hispanics represent 13 percent of the population, they accounted for 19 percent of new HIV infections in 1999. And one in four Washingtonians infected with HIV is under aged 22. Half are under 25. These are people that have grown up with the disease--they should be educated on prevention and they should know how to take care of themselves. But somehow complacency--whether from the new drugs and medical treatment--or from disease ennui--has replaced the message we want to be sending. We have long known that the only way to stop the advance of this terrible disease is through a coordinated and comprehensive approach to education, prevention and treatment. As a community we need to refocus our efforts and not allow complacency--especially among populations not traditionally associated with HIV/AIDS --to dictate the future. There must be a continued commitment to he eradication of this terrible disease. Before the end of today, several hundred people will become infected with AIDS. In these days of fear of Anthrax and discussions of bioterrorism we should not loose sight of the worst natural pandemic in human history. Twenty years after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first identified AIDS, I am afraid that this vast tragedy has become a little too familiar, and we may have become a little too complacent. The HIV/AIDS epidemic rages on, from Asia and Eastern Europe to the Caribbean and most tragically Africa. As AIDS has become an international crisis, its face has become that of humanity itself. I fear that AIDS may become the single greatest obstacle to global development humanity has ever faced. And while it is easy to become discouraged in the face of such a huge, heartbreaking calamity--the truth is we know how to stop the spread of AIDS. Through a coordinated and comprehensive program of education, prevention and treatment, we know that the epidemic can be greatly reduced in scope. To that end, I'm proud to join Senator Corzine in sponsoring the Microbicides Development Act of 2001. This bill increases authorization of funding for microbicide research at the National Institutes of Health and the CDC. Microbicides represent a novel and virtually unexplored area in STD/ HIV research. Microbicides can kill or inactivate the bacteria and viruses that cause STDs and AIDS. Despite their huge potential, microbicide research is underrepresented in the federal HIV research portfolio. Currently, Microbicide development represents only one percent of federal research in HIV/AIDS. Microbicides are unique in that they are under development as topical products--a cream or gel. This gives them a high degree of versatility and user control. This is especially important for women who are unable to or cannot ask their partner to use a condom to prevent spreading HIV. Development of a dependable, affordable and easy to use microbicide would represent a major breakthrough in AIDS prevention-- allowing populations like commercial sex workers to have more control over their own bodies. It is extremely important to prevent HIV transmission and serve women, a population increasingly at risk for HIV infection. Microbicide development is a fertile but unexplored anti-HIV research area. Pharmaceutical companies have generally concentrated on high return disease treatments and government-sponsored vaccine programs. While there are potential microbicides in the research and development pipeline, this bill encourages the pursuit of these promising compounds by increasing authorization for the current federal investment in microbial research in the next fiscal year. Through this bill, we will emphasize the work at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop products to prevent the transmission of AIDS for women. I can think of no new direction in AIDS prevention that has a larger potential--we know that the best preventatives must be easy to use and controlled by the user. I expect that microbicides will fill a new role in preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS. I thank Senator Corzine for his leadership on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President I rise today to introduce legislation that will help victims of identity theft recover from the injuries to their good name and good credit, the Reclaim Your Identity Act of 2001. Earlier this year, Washington State enacted a law to provide needed help to victims of identity theft that I believe serves as a good model for federal legislation. It gives victims of identity theft the tools they need to restore their good credit rating, requires businesses to make available records relevant to a victim's ability to restore his or her credit, and enables a victim to have fraudulent charges blocked from reporting in their consumer credit report. Currently, Federal law addresses the crime of identity theft, providing penalties for the perpetrator, but no specific assistance to the victim trying to recover their identity. Today I am introducing legislation modeled on the state of Washington law that will do just that, help the victim restore their credit rating and their good name. We need to do more to fight identity theft, a crime the Federal Trade Commission has described as the Nation's fastest growing. Last year there were over 500,000 new victims of identity theft and, according to the Department of Treasury, reports of identity theft to perpetrate fraud against financial institutions grew by 50 percent from 1999 to 2000. From March 2001 to June 2001, the number of ID theft victims contacting the FTC jumped from 45,500 to 69,400--a 50 percent increase in just three months. One in five Americans or a member of their families has been a victim of identity theft. Those numbers underscore why I am introducing this legislation today. The problem is particularly apparent in my State of Washington, which ranks in the top 10 for identity theft per capita. Identity theft is not a violent crime, but its victims suffer real harm and need help to recover their good credit and good name. On average, it takes 12 months for a victim to learn that he or she has been a victim of identity theft. It takes another 175 hours and $808 of out-of-pocket expenses to clear their names. Today, victims of identity theft are forced to become their own sleuths to clear their names, and all too often they do so without the help or support of the businesses that allowed the identity theft to take place. Believe it or not, when your identity is stolen, many businesses won't give you the records you need to reclaim your identity. My bill puts people first by requiring businesses to cooperate with victims. We already require this in Washington State, thanks to the hard work of Attorney General Chris Gregoire and others. Now we need to take this good idea to the national level and make it work on behalf of many others. When your TV is stolen, you know it was taken from your living room. But when your identity is stolen, it could be stolen from anywhere, and businesses from every State could be involved. That's why we need a Federal solution to this problem. The Reclaim Your Identity Act empowers consumers by establishing a transparent process victims can use to reclaim their identity. Under this bill, a victim of identity theft will have the right to request records related to a fraud based on an identity theft from businesses after proving their identity with a copy of the police report or the Federal Trade Commission standardized Identity Theft Affidavit or any other affidavit of fact of the business' choosing. The business must then provide, at no charge, copies of those business records to the victim or a law enforcement agency or officer designated by the victim within 10 days of the victim's request. This will make sure that the victims, or law enforcement investigating an identity theft on behalf of a victim, will be able to obtain the credit applications and other records a business may have that is evidence of the fraud. As a protective measure, the bill gives businesses the option to decline to disclose records where it believes the request is based on a misrepresentation of facts. Further, a business is exempt from liability for any disclosure undertaken in good faith to further a prosecution of identity theft or assist the victim. In addition, this bill reinstates consumers' right to sue credit- reporting agencies that allow identity theft to harm their good name. On November 12, the Supreme Court ruled that a California woman couldn't sue a credit reporting agency because she filed her claim more than two years after her identity had been stolen and that the two-year statute of limitations ran from the time of the crime. The woman didn't even know her identity had been stolen until two years after the crime had been committed. In the wake of the court decision, Congress must revise the statute of limitations so that common sense prevails and that the clock doesn't begin ticking until victims know that they have been harmed. The Reclaim Your Identity Act also amends the Internet False Identification Prevention Act to expand the jurisdiction and membership of the coordinating committee currently studying enforcement of Federal identity theft law to examine State and local enforcement problems and identify ways the federal government can assist state and local law enforcement in addressing identity theft and related crimes. In the wake of the September 11 attacks we are painfully aware that identity theft can threaten more than our pocket books. This legislation also requires the Federal coordinating committee to look at how the Federal Government can improve the sharing of information on terrorists and terrorist activity as it relates to identity theft. Further, by giving consumers and law enforcement additional tools to fight identity theft, this bill will make it harder for terrorists to steal identities to hide their true identity. Importantly, this bill also requires credit-reporting agencies to protect a consumers' good name from bad credit generated by fraud. The Reclaim Your Identity Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require consumer credit reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of identity theft provided the victim did not knowingly obtain goods, services or money as a result of the blocked transaction. Businesses too are victims of the fraud perpetrated in conjunction with identity theft. This legislation also provides businesses with new tools to pursue identity thieves by amending Title 18 to make identity theft under State law a predicate for federal RICO violation. This will allow individuals and businesses pursuing a perpetrator of identity theft to seek treble damages and help prosecutors recover stolen assets for businesses victimized by identity theft. The Reclaim Your Identity Act also gives States additional legal tools by providing that State Attorneys General may bring a suit in Federal court on behalf of State citizens for violation of the Act. Identity theft and the fraud that can result is on the rise. We have the laws to discourage identity theft, but it is difficult behavior to attack. We have to give the tools to the victims to regain control of their financial life. The Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource Center, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse all support this legislation. The Reclaim Your Identity Act of 2001 will help victims of identity theft recover their identity and restore their good credit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to promptly enact this bill into law.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President I rise today to introduce legislation that will help victims of identity theft recover from the injuries to their good name and good credit, the Reclaim Your Identity Act of 2001. Earlier this year, Washington State enacted a law to provide needed help to victims of identity theft that I believe serves as a good model for federal legislation. It gives victims of identity theft the tools they need to restore their good credit rating, requires businesses to make available records relevant to a victim's ability to restore his or her credit, and enables a victim to have fraudulent charges blocked from reporting in their consumer credit report. Currently, Federal law addresses the crime of identity theft, providing penalties for the perpetrator, but no specific assistance to the victim trying to recover their identity. Today I am introducing legislation modeled on the state of Washington law that will do just that, help the victim restore their credit rating and their good name. We need to do more to fight identity theft, a crime the Federal Trade Commission has described as the Nation's fastest growing. Last year there were over 500,000 new victims of identity theft and, according to the Department of Treasury, reports of identity theft to perpetrate fraud against financial institutions grew by 50 percent from 1999 to 2000. From March 2001 to June 2001, the number of ID theft victims contacting the FTC jumped from 45,500 to 69,400--a 50 percent increase in just three months. One in five Americans or a member of their families has been a victim of identity theft. Those numbers underscore why I am introducing this legislation today. The problem is particularly apparent in my State of Washington, which ranks in the top 10 for identity theft per capita. Identity theft is not a violent crime, but its victims suffer real harm and need help to recover their good credit and good name. On average, it takes 12 months for a victim to learn that he or she has been a victim of identity theft. It takes another 175 hours and $808 of out-of-pocket expenses to clear their names. Today, victims of identity theft are forced to become their own sleuths to clear their names, and all too often they do so without the help or support of the businesses that allowed the identity theft to take place. Believe it or not, when your identity is stolen, many businesses won't give you the records you need to reclaim your identity. My bill puts people first by requiring businesses to cooperate with victims. We already require this in Washington State, thanks to the hard work of Attorney General Chris Gregoire and others. Now we need to take this good idea to the national level and make it work on behalf of many others. When your TV is stolen, you know it was taken from your living room. But when your identity is stolen, it could be stolen from anywhere, and businesses from every State could be involved. That's why we need a Federal solution to this problem. The Reclaim Your Identity Act empowers consumers by establishing a transparent process victims can use to reclaim their identity. Under this bill, a victim of identity theft will have the right to request records related to a fraud based on an identity theft from businesses after proving their identity with a copy of the police report or the Federal Trade Commission standardized Identity Theft Affidavit or any other affidavit of fact of the business' choosing. The business must then provide, at no charge, copies of those business records to the victim or a law enforcement agency or officer designated by the victim within 10 days of the victim's request. This will make sure that the victims, or law enforcement investigating an identity theft on behalf of a victim, will be able to obtain the credit applications and other records a business may have that is evidence of the fraud. As a protective measure, the bill gives businesses the option to decline to disclose records where it believes the request is based on a misrepresentation of facts. Further, a business is exempt from liability for any disclosure undertaken in good faith to further a prosecution of identity theft or assist the victim. In addition, this bill reinstates consumers' right to sue credit- reporting agencies that allow identity theft to harm their good name. On November 12, the Supreme Court ruled that a California woman couldn't sue a credit reporting agency because she filed her claim more than two years after her identity had been stolen and that the two-year statute of limitations ran from the time of the crime. The woman didn't even know her identity had been stolen until two years after the crime had been committed. In the wake of the court decision, Congress must revise the statute of limitations so that common sense prevails and that the clock doesn't begin ticking until victims know that they have been harmed. The Reclaim Your Identity Act also amends the Internet False Identification Prevention Act to expand the jurisdiction and membership of the coordinating committee currently studying enforcement of Federal identity theft law to examine State and local enforcement problems and identify ways the federal government can assist state and local law enforcement in addressing identity theft and related crimes. In the wake of the September 11 attacks we are painfully aware that identity theft can threaten more than our pocket books. This legislation also requires the Federal coordinating committee to look at how the Federal Government can improve the sharing of information on terrorists and terrorist activity as it relates to identity theft. Further, by giving consumers and law enforcement additional tools to fight identity theft, this bill will make it harder for terrorists to steal identities to hide their true identity. Importantly, this bill also requires credit-reporting agencies to protect a consumers' good name from bad credit generated by fraud. The Reclaim Your Identity Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require consumer credit reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of identity theft provided the victim did not knowingly obtain goods, services or money as a result of the blocked transaction. Businesses too are victims of the fraud perpetrated in conjunction with identity theft. This legislation also provides businesses with new tools to pursue identity thieves by amending Title 18 to make identity theft under State law a predicate for federal RICO violation. This will allow individuals and businesses pursuing a perpetrator of identity theft to seek treble damages and help prosecutors recover stolen assets for businesses victimized by identity theft. The Reclaim Your Identity Act also gives States additional legal tools by providing that State Attorneys General may bring a suit in Federal court on behalf of State citizens for violation of the Act. Identity theft and the fraud that can result is on the rise. We have the laws to discourage identity theft, but it is difficult behavior to attack. We have to give the tools to the victims to regain control of their financial life. The Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource Center, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse all support this legislation. The Reclaim Your Identity Act of 2001 will help victims of identity theft recover their identity and restore their good credit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to promptly enact this bill into law.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I am introducing legislation today that will reauthorize Federal participation in the historic preservation efforts of one of the most historically significant sites in the Pacific Northwest, the Fort Vancouver National Historic Reserve. The Historic Reserve is rich in cultural and historic national significance, pre-dating the arrival of Lewis and Clark through the mid-20th century. For more than 10,000 years, Native American groups inhabited the prairies along the Columbia River that include the site of present-day Vancouver and the historic reserve. Located on the great American waterway, the Columbia River, the Vancouver National Historic Reserve site became the base of Columbia region operations for the Hudson's Bay Trading Company in the early 19th century. As my colleagues know, Hudson's Bay was the powerful British fur trading company that vied for control of the trapping industry in Western lands of the present-day United States, even before political control of those lands were established. At its peak, the company built an enormous network through the region, with Fort Vancouver as the administrative headquarters and supply depot for the hundreds of employees at dozens of posts in the region. Fort Vancouver became a trade center for the Western territories, with goods arriving frequently from Europe and the Hawaiian Islands and large quantities of furs and other natural resource products returned to London. The Fort came to serve as a hub for numerous other developing industries, including sawmills, dairies, shipbuilders, fishers and tanneries. In essence, Fort Vancouver truly served as a historic foundation for the development of the entire Pacific Northwest region. But this history of the trapping industry is not the only significant aspect of this site. The Fort also served as the Northwest's military administrative headquarters beginning in 1849. The United States Army continuously occupied the Vancouver Barracks at the historic reserve site for 150 years. In the 1920's, the Army created a small airfield for the Army Air Corps, which is now the site of the oldest operating airfield in the Nation, Pearson Airfield. In the 1930's, the Fort was used as a training camp for those participating in the Civilian Conservation Corps' reforestation program. And, during World War II, General George C. Marshall presided over the Barracks and resided on Officer's Row. Thanks to the wisdom, respect for history, and foresight of numerous individuals including Representative Russell Mack, the esteemed chairwoman of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Julia Butler Hansen, Congressman Don Bonker, and Congresswoman Jolene Unsoeld, among many others, the tremendous resources of the site have been protected for future generations. President Truman signed legislation in 1948 that first authorized for Fort Vancouver National Monument. The act allowed the War Assets Administration to transfer surplus property in Vancouver Barracks to the Secretary of the Interior. On June 30, 1954, the National Monument was officially established and the nearly 60 acres of the Vancouver Barracks were transferred to the National Park Service. Finally, the site was designated as a National Historic Site in 1961. In 1996, the expanded, 366-acre Vancouver National Historic Reserve was established to protect all of the historically significant historical areas within adjacent to the barracks. The reserve includes Fort Vancouver, the Vancouver Barracks, Officers' Row, Pearson Field, the Water Resources Education Center, and portions of the Columbia River waterfront. The sites serve as an enormously significant resource in Southwest Washington. The restoration of the barracks alone is an enormously important project to stimulate the economic revitalization of Vancouver. Last year, Congress authorized the transfer of the 16 buildings that comprise the West Barracks to the City of Vancouver, and the partners involved in this tremendous project have devised a Cooperative Management Plan that identifies $40 million in necessary spending to replace failing infrastructure and rehabilitate the 16 buildings to the standards established under the National Historic Preservation Act. The Partner's Cooperative Management Plan for the Historic Reserve calls for the Barracks to be reused primarily for historic preservation, education, and other forms of public use. But the location of the site near the heart of Vancouver and the potential for drawing additional economic activity back to the city make this vitally important for Southwest Washington. The public-private partnership plan for the Barracks has also developed a cost-sharing plan between federal, state, and private sources to locate the necessary funds and perform the renovation during the next four to six years. While we at the Federal level have contributed to the project in recent years, the State of Washington and the City of Vancouver have also committed significant resources, and the Vancouver National Historic Reserve Trust has initiated aggressive efforts to raise funds quickly. I have worked this year, and my colleague Senator Murray has successfully worked this year and in years past, to obtain those critical federal dollars for the project. However, I believe that more can and should be done to keep this project moving ahead. We must never forget our cultural, political, and economic heritage, and our historic resources help educate and remind us of those origins. That is why we have come together to introduce this legislation that will authorize additional federal spending on the project. I look forward to working with Senator Murray and others on the Appropriations Committee to move this legislation quickly and continuing progress on this significant project for the Pacific Northwest and our Nation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President I rise today for two purposes. First, I commend my colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his tireless work on immigration issues and to offer my support for a bill he and Senator Brownback are introducing today, the Enhanced Border Security Act of 2001. Also, I want to discuss legislation I will be introducing that builds upon the visa technology standards provisions of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and fits within the construct of what Senators Kennedy and Brownback seek to accomplish. Several of the provisions I have proposed have already been incorporated by Senators Kennedy and Brownback, and I will continue to work with them and my other colleagues to move other provisions of my bill. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been honored to work closely with Senator Kennedy to find ways to better protect our borders and provide necessary support to the men and women who work for the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Agency. I, along with many of my colleagues, am currently pressing for funding to triple the number of Immigration and Naturalization Service and U.S. personnel on our northern border and improve border technology, the authorization for which was included in the USA Patriot Act. In the past, a severe lack of resources at our northern border has compromised the ability of border control officials to execute their duties. I am pleased that Congress made the tripling of these resources a priority for national security, and I will continue to fight for full funding of this measure. Senators Kennedy and Brownback have also addressed these needs by improving INS pay standards, providing additional training for Border Patrol and Customs agents, and increasing information technology funding. Let me commend Senators Kennedy and Brownback on the bill they are introducing today. It reflects a thoughtful response to the current situation at our borders, and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor. I am aware that others have proposals to address border issues as well, and I look forward to working with them. The Enhanced Border Security Act of 2001 addresses several critical issues. In hearings in recent weeks before the Immigration Subcommittee and the Technology and, Terrorism Subcommittee, we heard repeated calls for better sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information as it relates to admitting aliens into the United States. The bill addresses this problem by mandating INS and Department of State access to relevant FBI information within one year. I am pleased that the authors of this bill have included provisions to protect the privacy and security of this information, and require limitations on the use and repeated dissemination of the information. Sharing U.S. law enforcement and intelligence information with the State Department and INS is important, but it is also critical to build upon our relationships with Canada and Mexico. We share a mutual interest in protecting our respective borders. The U.S., Canada and Mexico must also improve the sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence communities. We need to develop a perimeter national security program with our partners to our north and south, and the Enhanced Border Security Act does just that. The Enhanced Border Security Act requires airlines to provide passenger manifests to the INS and Customs in advance of a flight's arrival. This will be one more source of data, that will help INS screen for those who should not be allowed to enter. It also tightens controls on student visas, and restricts the issuance of visas to aliens who are citizens of countries that sponsor terrorism. This is a thoughtful bill and I urge my colleagues' support. Last week with the enactment of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, the Federal Government committed to developing a visa technology standard that would facilitate the sharing of information related to the admissibility of aliens into the United States. I proposed this language recognizing that for many years, the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence communities have maintained numerous, but separate, non- interoperable databases. These databases are not easily or readily accessible to front-line Federal agents responsible for making the critical decisions of whether to issue a visa or to admit an alien into the United States. To build on and fulfill the goals of establishing this standard, my bill will do three things. First, it will require technology be implemented to track the initial entry and exit of aliens traveling on a U.S. visa. We know now that several of the terrorists who attacked America on September 11 were traveling on expired visas. We have had the law in place for several years now, but due to concerns about maintaining the flow of trade and tourism across our borders, concerns I share, the provisions of Section 110 have not been fully implemented. Technology will address those concerns, allowing electronic recordation and verification of entry and exit data in an instant. Second, I believe it is necessary to require the Departments of State and Justice to work with the Office of Homeland Security to build a cohesive electronic data sharing system. The system must incorporate interoperability and compatibility within and between the databases of the various agencies that maintain information relevant to determining whether a visa should be issued or whether an alien should be admitted into the United States. My legislation will require interoperable real- time sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information relevant to the issuance of a visa or an alien's admissibility to the U.S. The provision will require that information is made available, although with the appropriate safeguards for privacy and the protection of intelligence sources, to the front line government agents making the decisions to issue visas or to admit visa holding aliens to the United States. I am pleased that Senators Kennedy and Brownback have adopted these provisions into their legislation. Finally, building on the provisions of the Kennedy-Brownback bill for a Perimeter National Security Program, and on the technology standard required under the USA Patriot Act, my legislation will require the Department of State and the Attorney General to study and report to Congress within 90 days on how best to facilitate sharing of information that may be relevant to determining whether to issue a U.S. visa. Our borders are only as secure as the borders of those countries with whom we have agreements that visas are not required. We need to build on our relationships with these international partners to secure our respective borders through better information sharing. Keeping terrorists out of the U.S. in the first place will reduce the risks of terrorism within the U.S. in the future. Aliens known to be affiliated with terrorists have been admitted to the U.S. on valid visas simply because one agency in government did not share important information with another department in a timely fashion. We must make sure that this does not happen again. Until now, we had hoped that agencies would voluntarily share this information on a real-time and regular basis. This has not happened, and although I know that the events of September 11 have led to serious rethinking of our information-sharing processes and procedures, I think it is time to mandate the sharing of fundamental information. Advancements in technology have provided us with additional tools to verify the identify of individuals entering our country without impairing the flow of legitimate trade, tourism, workers and students. It is time we put these tools to use. Improving our national security is vitally important, but I will not support measures that compromise America's civil liberties. Both the bill being introduced today and the bill I will be introducing include several safeguards to protect individuals' rights to privacy. The bills provide that where databases are created or shared, there must be protection of privacy and adequate security measures in place, limitations on the use and re-dissemination of information, and mechanisms for removing obsolete or erroneous information. Even in times of urgent action, we must protect the freedoms that make our country great.