Maria Cantwell

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.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with the other 13 women Senators and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas to introduce a bill that will authorize the use of existing funds in the foreign operations bill for the education and health care services of Afghan women. There is no doubt that the Taliban regime has been particularly heinous to the women of Afghanistan. Women are not allowed in public, girls are not sent to school, and the basic human rights that are afforded to women across the world, especially women here in America, are denied. The record is clear, women and girls in Afghanistan are abused regularly by the Afghan Government. It is my hope that the monies made available by this bill will help ameliorate the lives of the Afghan women by bettering their educational opportunities and increasing their access to necessary and vital health care services.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak, along with my colleagues from Michigan and Washington who have eloquently talked about the important need of helping the apple industry--not just those States mentioned but all across the Nation. We are trying to move forward on an Agriculture appropriations bill. We have the opportunity in that process to express the failure of last August when we actually had the means by which to help legitimate apple growers across the country in the emergency supplemental. I very much appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Wisconsin to help us bring attention to this issue. The current House version of this bill includes $150 million in apple assistance. We need to match that assistance. As my colleagues have stated, this industry, particularly this year for us in the State of Washington, has just been devastating, largely due to the fact we have had the second worst drought on record in our State. Not only have farmers been without all the resources they need, but the high cost of energy in those areas where farmers have been able to irrigate has made this a very difficult year. We have already seen how important the apple industry is in our State. Over 183,000 people are employed in that industry. But every one of these family farms are on the brink, and they need help now. Current prices are 40 percent below the cost of production. Between 1995 and 1998, apple growers lost approximately $760 million due to questionable import practices involving such countries as China and Korea--in addition to stiff export tariffs. They also face increases in the price of diesel fuel. Prices are up 20 to 30 percent over last year. The cost of running electricity pumps that these farmers use is expected to rise as much as 150 percent. Our farmers have been facing all of these things, and some are very close to bankruptcy. So I very much appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin in his efforts to make sure this issue gets addressed as we move through the process, and I very much appreciate his efforts earlier this year in making sure the Senate version of the supplemental included this support. I yield back the remainder of my time. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we must act on many fronts to wage a successful fight against terrorism. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 will provide our law enforcement agencies with significant new tools to fight this battle on the home front. There are many good things in this bill. I am especially pleased that the bill includes language to allow the tripling of manpower on our northern border. The bill also includes a provision to set a new technology standard for our visa program so we can better identify people coming into this country. I am very proud of the many tools in the bill for law enforcement. This legislation increases the number of FISA judges to speed law enforcement's ability to get taps in place and going and contains excellent new provisions to help law enforcement and banks better track and freeze financial assets of terrorists. Further, the bill provides for expedited hiring and training of FBI translators. Finally, the legislation takes steps to allow better sharing of information between the law enforcement and intelligence communities, although I believe this sharing and coordination would be better accomplished with a process for judicial review. But I have my concerns, as well, with the scope and the pace of these sweeping changes. We may have gone further than we really need to go to address terrorism. Thanks to the extremely hard work of Senator Leahy and his staff, Senator Hatch and others in both houses of Congress, this legislation is much more carefully tailored to addressing terrorism than the legislation proposed by the Administration only a short month ago. But I remain concerned about several provisions such as those involving wiretap authorities, pen register and trap and trace, computer trespass, access to business records and other new legal authorities which will not require a showing by the government of probable cause or allow for any meaningful judicial review. The scope of these provisions may make them susceptible to abuse--allowing inappropriate, possibly unconstitutional, intrusion into the privacy of American citizens. I am pleased that some of the most disconcerting provisions of this legislation will expire in four years. This ``sunset'' provision will give Congress the opportunity to evaluate the implementation of these new laws, and reassess the need for the changes. I would like to believe that the government's new ability to place wiretaps on the lines of American citizens--in secret with limited reporting and opportunity for oversight by Congress --will not be abused. I would like to believe that technologies like Carnivore will not be used to derive content from email communications. But I am skeptical. Several other aspects of this bill, when taken together, could also interfere with Americans' enjoyment of their right to privacy without providing value in the fight against terrorists. Those of us who feel strongly about how new powers might chip away at traditional privacy rights will pay close attention to how law enforcement uses these tools. The bill's ostensible purpose in regard to searches of personal communication is to facilitate the sharing of information gathered in a law enforcement context with the intelligence community. There is a difference, however, between facilitating the sharing of information between the law enforcement and intelligence communities, and blurring the line between the missions of the two communities. Where information is sought for the purpose of law enforcement, we must ensure that fourth amendment protections apply. Our fear about the legislation comes from a legitimate concern that information gathered ostensibly for intelligence and defense purposes could be used for law enforcement purposes. The intelligence community does not prosecute and lock up its targets; it uses information to intervene against foreign nationals seeking to harm America or Americans. But the law enforcement community has a different mission, to catch and prosecute criminals in our courts of law. Because law enforcement acts upon U.S. citizens, it must do so within the bounds of the Constitution. The differences in these missions must be acknowledged, and we must be vigilant to maintain the distinctions. Last week, Senator Leahy and I discussed here on the floor the need to maintain strict oversight of the law enforcement community's use of new authorities enumerated in this legislation. Today I want to reiterate the need for that oversight, the need for regular Government Accounting Office reports to Congress of the use of the new authorities under FISA and pen register and trap and trace law and the need for the Committee on the Judiciary to scrutinize the use of these new authorities regularly. I am pleased that many members of the Senate believe we must pursue this duty diligently. I am also pleased that the final version of this legislation incorporates a four-year limit on the applicability of these and many other search authorities. With this ``sunset,'' law enforcement and intelligence agencies will be able to use new powers to identify and act on terrorist efforts and Congress will have the ability to review fully the implications of the new law. We can all agree that the events on September 11 have focused America on the fight against terrorism, and we applaud the efforts of the administration in the weeks since that tragic day. Clearly, there were failures in our investigative network, and this legislation will help avoid such failures in the future, allowing greater sharing of information that could foil terrorists before they carry out their brutal schemes against innocent civilians. The question then becomes how to make sure that the new authority isn't abused--in fact used for law enforcement purposes or fishing expeditions. Over many years and with great effort, we have crafted a careful balance in protecting personal privacy. The bottom line is this legislation could circumvent or supersede Federal and State privacy laws that have balanced law enforcement needs and privacy concerns, going well beyond the changes to the law needed for intelligence gathering. This is no ordinary time for our country. But in this process we must remember those Fourth Amendment rights that we have so diligently fought for in the past. I am proud of this Congress for acting promptly and thoughtfully in response to the horrific events of September 11. That day was an awakening to Americans, signaling the urgency for this government to change how we deal with terrorism. This legislation does much to facilitate better information gathering and sharing between our law enforcement and intelligence communities and greater protection of our borders from the intrusion of terrorists. I am hopeful that those of us in government have the wisdom and prudence to use these new powers in such a way as to not undermine the freedoms we seek to protect. Mr. President, currently, there is no single technology standard in place that allows the Federal Government to confirm with certainty the identity of aliens seeking entry into the United States through the visa program. Insufficient identification technology is available to our consular officers responsible for reviewing visa applications to facilitate a comprehensive background check of persons applying for a United States visa. Consular officers lack the technology to verify that a person seeking a visa has not previously sought or received a visa using another name or identity. Similarly, there is no widely implemented technology that allows United States border inspectors to confirm the identity of persons seeking admittance into the United States using a visa. Pursuant to Section 403(c) of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Federal Government is required to develop and implement a technology standard that can facilitate extremely high confidence in confirming the identity of an alien seeking a visa or seeking entry into the United States pursuant to a visa. The standard required by these provisions will facilitate the capture and sharing of all relevant identity information regarding the alien applicant, including biometrics, and information relevant to determining the eligibility of such a person for entry into the United States from and between all relevant departments and agencies through compatible, interoperable systems. The purpose of this subsection is to ensure that United States Government will establish a technology standard to allow: 1, the State Department, at the time a person applies for a United States visa, to do a comprehensive background check against databases of known aliens ineligible for entry into the United States; 2, the State Department to verify the identity of a person applying for a United States visa as a person who has not on a previous occasion sought a visa using a different name or identity; and 3, United States border inspectors and preclearance agents to confirm that a person seeking entry to the United States on the basis of a visa is the same person who obtained the visa from the Department of State. Although it is understood by Congress that technological advances may require revisions to any standard adopted pursuant to this provision, it is expected that the standard will initially incorporate appropriate biometric technologies to compare identity information provided by the visa applicant to criminal, immigration and intelligence databases that use a fingerprint biometric or a facial recognition biometric. Further, to obtain the greatest protection of United States citizens by excluding persons ineligible for entry into the United States, the Department of State, the Department of Justice and other appropriate departments of the Federal Government should work with the governments of other countries to encourage such countries to adopt the standard established pursuant to this subparagraph and to establish international interoperability of identity databases. In particular, it will be beneficial to the United States to facilitate adoption of this technology standard for appropriate identity information exchange with Canada and Mexico. It would further benefit the security of United States citizens to encourage adoption of this standard by those countries for whose citizens the United States, Canada or Mexico do not require a visa to enter the respective country. Paragraph (1) requires the Department of Justice and Department of State, through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and in consultation with other Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies deemed appropriate by the Attorney General or the Secretary of State, to develop a technology standard to facilitate confirmation of the identity of persons seeking a visa or persons using a visa to enter the United States. The Departments of Justice and State shall also consult with Congress in the development of this standard through the reporting process described in paragraph (4) of this subsection. This technology standard will enable the Department of State to confirm that a person seeking a visa is not known to the Federal Government as a person ineligible for a visa, or is a person who has sought or obtained a visa using a different name or identity. The technology standard will also enable Federal inspectors at all ports of entry and preclearance locations to confirm that a person seeking entry to the United States using a visa is the same as the person to which the Department of State issued the visa, and is not a person sought by the Federal Government to be excluded from entry to the United States. The technology standard must be developed and certified by NIST within two years of the date of enactment of this subsection. Paragraph (2) provides that the technology standard described in paragraph (1) shall be the basis for a cross-agency, cross-platform electronic database system that is a cost-effective, efficient, fully integrated means to share law enforcement and intelligence information necessary to confirm the identity of a person applying for a United States visa, or such a person seeking to enter the United States using a visa. Paragraph (3) requires that the system described in paragraph (2) shall be implemented in a manner that is readily and easily accessible to all consular officers responsible for the issuance of United States visas; all Federal inspection agents at United States border inspection points (including any preclearance locations); and all law enforcement and intelligence officers responsible for investigation or identification of aliens admitted to the United States pursuant to a visa, provided that such officers are provided access to this system pursuant to regulation. Paragraph (4) provides that the Attorney General and the Secretary of State jointly and in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall report to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of this Act, and every two years thereafter, describing the development, implementation and efficacy of the technology standard described in this subsection. The report must also consider the privacy implications and applicability of Federal privacy laws.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with the other 13 women Senators and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas to introduce a bill that will authorize the use of existing funds in the foreign operations bill for the education and health care services of Afghan women. There is no doubt that the Taliban regime has been particularly heinous to the women of Afghanistan. Women are not allowed in public, girls are not sent to school, and the basic human rights that are afforded to women across the world, especially women here in America, are denied. The record is clear, women and girls in Afghanistan are abused regularly by the Afghan Government. It is my hope that the monies made available by this bill will help ameliorate the lives of the Afghan women by bettering their educational opportunities and increasing their access to necessary and vital health care services.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Dr. Lee Hartwell who received this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Dr. Hartwell began his work over 30 years ago with little more equipment or sophisticated research methods than a few dishes of yeast cells and a microscope and now works at one of the most prestigious cancer research centers in the country. Dr. Hartwell is President of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, and also a Professor of Genetics and Medicine at the University of Washington. I believe that no one deserves this honor more than Dr. Hartwell, who is gracious and humble in his knowledge even as it has fundamentally changed the way we understand biology. Dr. Hartwell was selected to receive the Nobel Prize because of his contributions to understanding how cells divide. Using yeast as a model organism, he was among the first scientists in the world to translate basic genetic research into the study of how cells function, and to determine which genes are involved in cell division. Cells are the basis for all animal and plant life, and our understanding of how they multiply and develop is key to our understanding of larger organisms, like people. Errors or mutations in genes involved in the process of cell division can lead to cancer. Dr. Hartwell's work on these genes is fundamental in developing approaches that predict, prevent, or treat many kinds of cancers. In his research, Dr. Hartwell has discovered more than 100 genes involved in cell-cycle control, including the gene that controls the first step in the cell division process. He also documented the existence of cell-cycle ``checkpoints,'' which ensure steps in the process of cell growth and division have been completed properly before the process continues. Dr. Hartwell's work was the first to show that cell division is genetically controlled, and he generated a collection of cell-division cycle mutants from which many of the key genes in this process have been isolated. Dr. Hartwell's latest work focuses on the possible role for checkpoint defects and genetic instability in cancer progression and he is looking into how to exploit these defects to develop new cancer treatments. Dr. Hartwell graduated from Glendale High School in California before deciding to attend a junior college. He later transferred from junior college to the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, CA. In 1961, he earned a Bachelor of Science at Caltech, and in 1964 earned a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He did postdoctoral work at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. He joined the University of Washington faculty in 1968 and has been a professor of genetics there since 1973. In 1996 he joined the faculty of Seattle's Fred Hutchinson, Cancer Research Center and in 1997 became its president and director. Dr. Hartwell is the recipient of many national and international scientific awards for his work in cell-cycle biology, including the Leopold Griffuel Prize, the Massry Prize, the American Cancer Society's Medal of Honor Basic Research Award, the Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Prize, the General Motors Sloan Award and the Gairdner Foundation International Award for Achievements in Science. Dr. Hartwell is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Hartwell typifies the ingenuity and creativity found throughout Washington State. I speak for us all when I commend him on winning the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Dr. Hartwell's work is truly revolutionary, and although it is done without pomp and circumstance, his work will have a lasting impact on us all.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to raise several concerns regarding the provisions of this legislation, the USA Act of 2001, that expand wiretapping authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and amend Federal pen register and trap and trace authorities. Both of these changes purport to improve communication between law enforcement and intelligence operatives. There is a difference, however, between facilitating the sharing of information between the law enforcement and intelligence communities, and blurring the line between the missions of the two communities. Where information is sought for the purpose of law enforcement, we must ensure that fourth amendment protections apply. Much of the fear about the legislation is based on legitimate concern that information gathered ostensibly for intelligence and defense purposes could be used for law enforcement purposes. The intelligence community does not prosecute and lock up its targets; it uses information to intervene against foreign nationals seeking to harm America. But the law enforcement community has a different mission, to catch and prosecute criminals in our courts of law. Because law enforcement acts upon U.S. citizens, it must do so within the bounds of the Constitution. The differences in these missions must be acknowledged, and we must be vigilant to maintain the distinctions. We can all agree that the events on September 11 have focused America on the fight against terrorism, and we applaud the efforts of the administration in the weeks since that tragic day. Clearly, there were failures in our investigative network, and this legislation will address some of those failures, allowing greater sharing of information that could foil terrorists before they carry out their brutal schemes against innocent civilians. I appreciate Chairman Leahy's tireless efforts to facilitate our intelligence gathering authorities while preserving our constitutional rights. The negotiations have been intense, but these are difficult and divisive issues. Given the time frame, Chairman Leahy's charge has not been an easy one, but I appreciate the substantial progress he has made. I remain concerned that some of the legislative changes fail to balance the increased powers to law enforcement against the need to protect the civil liberties of Americans. With these changes to FISA, it will be much more likely that the FBI will be able to obtain secret FISA wiretaps on American citizens. That information may not only be used for intelligence purposes, but also in a criminal prosecution, without complying with the normal requirements of a title III wiretap and the safeguards it provides to adhere to the fourth amendment. Some have warned that this language leaves room for ``fishing expeditions'' rather than properly authorized law enforcement activities. I would hope that this is not the case. Although the language has been improved from the administration's original proposal and now would require that ``a significant,'' rather than simply ``a,'' purpose for the wiretap must be the gathering of foreign intelligence, the possibility remains that the primary purpose of the wiretap would be a criminal investigation, without the safeguards of the title III wiretap law and the protections under the fourth amendment that those fulfill. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee whether he interprets this language in this same way.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for the time and his energies this evening. We all know that the hour is late and that there are many things we must accomplish in our acts to fight terrorism. This is probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation that affects our home-front activities in fighting that battle. There are many good things in this bill. I am very proud of the authorizing language to triple the resources for our northern borders. I am very proud of the language in the bill that basically will set a new technology standard for our visa program so we can better identify people coming into this country. I am very proud of the many tools in the bill for law enforcement. I ask unanimous consent that the column in the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. This article said it best with the headline: ``When Care Beats Haste'': The question then becomes how to make sure that the new authority isn't abused--in fact used for law enforcement purposes or fishing expeditions-- Later it says that it would be wrong for us to take an acquiescent step that in the long run would really hurt our country. What Senator Feingold is simply trying to say is that we have already painstakingly over many years crafted a careful balance in protecting personal privacy. This language in section 215 changes that. It basically says that the FBI can have access to other things, including business records from U.S. citizens who may have had incidental contact with someone who is defined as a terrorist. Think about that for a second. If you are an employer and someone in your company has now been accused of these terrorists acts and is under investigation, your business records can also be attained if, as Senator Feingold said, it was deemed part of this investigation, with very minimal judicial review. Take for another example, you happen to live across the hall from someone who now has become a suspect. Maybe you have been over to their house for dinner several times. Now, all of a sudden, you may be part of that investigation, and your financial records, your medical records, your personal records can now be part of that investigation, again, with very minimal judicial review. I have heard from many in my State, including my State librarian, consumers, and businesses that are concerned, that this provision is far too broad. It takes little imagination, as I said, to think of all the tangible items this would give the FBI carte blanche to examine some people's most private and personal papers. The bottom line is this legislation could circumvent or supersede Federal and State privacy laws that protect student records, library records, and health records not previously admissible under FISA. What we are talking about in the Feingold amendment is trying to preserve those State and Federal laws that already specify protection. The amendment simply states where Congress or a State legislature has enacted a law which requires an order to obtain records, that Federal or State law stands. That seems pretty simple. We have worked on these issues. We should not work on them in haste. This is a very complex time. It is no ordinary time for our country. This process has to remember those fourth amendment rights that we have so diligently fought for in the past. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I support this bill, but I do so only with some reservations. We are giving broad new powers to our law enforcement and intelligence communities--without the traditional safeguards of judicial review and congressional oversight. I believe that many provisions of the bill, particularly those sections dealing with electronic eavesdropping and computer trespass, remain seriously flawed and may infringe on civil liberties. I am voting for this bill today with the strong hope that it will be improved in a conference with the House. As it currently stands, the Senate bill breaks down the traditional separation of domestic criminal matters governed by the fourth amendment right against unjustified search and seizure--from the gathering of international intelligence information traditionally gathered without the same concern for constitutional rights. I strongly believe that we should have included in this bill a sunset provision that would give Congress the opportunity to reassess whether these new tools are yielding the intended results in the war on terror, and I am hopeful that the final bill will emerge with this and other improvements. If this bill is not improved through a conference process or other negotiation, I reserve the right to vote against a conference report. However, I also believe this bill contains many provisions that will significantly advance our battle against terrorism. I thank the Chairman for his hard work on these provisions and appreciate his efforts particularly to strengthen security on our northern border. Among the most important provisions in this bill is the authorization to triple staffing across our northern border. These increases in manpower are desperately needed. The northern border is patrolled by only 300 border patrol agents in contrast to the 9,000 on the southern border. More critically, at points of entry where suspect persons have repeatedly tried to enter or have entered, we currently lack sufficient staffing to allow Customs and INS inspectors and INS agents to do their job well. We place a tremendous responsibility on the individuals charged with deciding whom to admit and whom to turn away. One additional new tool this bill provides is the establishment of a visa technology standard to help secure our border. I personally worked to get language included in this bill that requires the State Department and the Department of Justice to develop a shared technology standard--so that we can be certain each individual who seeks entry into our country on a visa--is the person he or she claims to be. American citizenship comes with deeply valued privileges and rights. One of the most basic of those rights is privacy. To require a fingerprint or a digital photograph of an alien seeking to enter our country is a reasonable and effective way to improve our ability to keep terrorists out of this country while still welcoming a vibrant flow of legal immigrants. Unfortunately, aspects of this bill that impose unreasonable and unwarranted requirements on legal immigrants, greatly expand electronic eavesdropping, and potentially provide law enforcement easy access to some types of email communications--remain troubling. I would like to believe that the expansion of the ability of the government to place wiretaps on the lines of American citizens--done in secret with insignificant reporting or opportunity for oversight by the Congress--will not be abused. I would like to believe that technologies like that technologies like Carnivore will not be used to derive content from email communications. But I am skeptical. Several other aspects of this bill, when taken together, also have the potential to interfere with Americans' enjoyment of their right to privacy without providing value in the fight against terrorists. Those of us who feel strongly about how new powers might chip away at traditional privacy rights will closely watch how law enforcement uses these tools. The events of September 11 have changed us as a country forever. We have been attacked on our own soil. Thousands have died, thousands more have been injured. Very simply, we must do all that we can to stop terrorism by finding and disrupting terrorist activities here and abroad. The challenge we face is to do this without compromising the value that make Americans unique and have allowed us to become great: respect for personal autonomy and the rights of the individual; and tolerance of all regardless of race or religion. While I will vote for this bill, I also promise to engage in vigilant oversight of these new powers, and I urge those in the law enforcement and intelligence communities to use these powers wisely and with great deliberation.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to support my colleague, Senator Feingold, and his amendment to section 217. I think the Senator has done a tremendous job in outlining the issues related to this bill and the fact that haste can sometimes make waste. Haste in some instances on very well crafted language to uphold our rights under the Constitution can be infringed upon. Section 217 is intended to allow computer system owners and operators to fully engage Federal law enforcement where someone hacks or intrudes into their system. As Senator Feingold mentioned, that could be a business owner, or it could be a library system, or it could be a university system. Unfortunately, as drafted, there are few limits on what communications the Government could intercept without showing probable cause that a crime has been committed and without having the opportunity for judicial review of those intercepts. The provisions do not even limit the scope of the surveillance. Once authorized, the Government could intercept all communications of a person who is allegedly a trespasser. Again, let me be clear: Without meeting the fourth amendment requirement to show probable cause. Further, there is no time limit on the surveillance under the provision of this legislation. For those who may be reviewing this legislation for the first time, and understanding that as they go to their workplace, or as they go to their educational institution, or as they go to their library to enhance their education, they could be under surveillance for a very long and indefinite period of time without their knowledge. Thus, once authorized by a computer system operator, the Government could intercept all communications of a person forever without a proper search warrant. Even a court order wiretap expires after 30 days. This amendment would remedy some of the defects in this bill. It would do that by requiring that the surveillance be only of communications associated with the trespass and that the length of the surveillance be limited to 96 hours, which, by the way, is twice as long as the time limit placed on emergency wiretap authority. If the problem continues, investigators could easily obtain additional warrant time for the surveillance to continue. This is a very important time in our country's history. It is a time in which we want to act in unity and support the administration. It is a time in which we want to act to give law enforcement the tools they need to apprehend those who have been responsible and may be responsible for future acts of terrorism. But we also must preserve the right of citizens of this country when it comes to the fourth amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support the Feingold amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, similarly, I am concerned that revisions to the laws regarding pen registers and trap and trace devices may have fourth amendment implications. Although modified since we received the original language from the Administration, the new language could encourage greater use of technologies such as the FBI's ``Carnivore'' to access information that is protected by the fourth amendment. The failure to properly define the term ``address'' in the e-mail context to exclude information protected by the Fourth Amendment will haunt us for a long time. And I regret this. Although it certainly can be said that new technologies are emerging and the definition may need be flexible, the term ``address'' presently is undefined and new in the context of our Federal criminal statutes. Because of this ambiguity, we may see law enforcement authorities take inconsistent approaches to filtering information pursuant to this new law. There is risk that some will obtain information, such as ``subject line'' information or URL codes, that may otherwise be protected by the fourth amendment. There is certain to be judicial scrutiny of this provision.

Ms. CANTWELL. I would like to suggest to the chairman, and I would be happy to work closely with the Chairman on this, that the General Accounting Office provide to the Senate Judiciary Committee every six months a report on the use of the FISA wiretap authorities, and the expanded pen register and trap and trace authorities, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other agencies within the Department of Justice. I would certainly not suggest compromising the security of our nation with such a report, so I would be content with closed-session hearings on the findings of such reports. But only with such oversight can we reasonably assure our constituents that the use of these new authorities is not impinging on our fourth amendment rights.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the chairman for his diligence in working to preserve our fundamental rights.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, although much effort has gone into narrowing this provision to fit within the bounds of the Constitution, it would seem to me that this legislation may not stand up to this test, and thus may fail judicial scrutiny. Regardless, we cannot await court review. I believe Congress must keep watch over the use of this provision. May I ask the Chairman, do you agree that, under these circumstances, it is incumbent upon the committee, which has jurisdiction over the Department of Justice, to maintain vigilant oversight of the Department in its use of FISA authorities after enactment of this legislation?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I also rise with a great deal of frustration over the last vote where the majority of my colleagues in the Senate want to act to help workers who have been impacted by the acts of September 11 and the emergency that has prevailed; that we do something to help those who have been most impacted by job layoffs by cutbacks in major industries related to transportation; and that we act immediately. I am very frustrated, even though a majority of my colleagues want to see such legislation passed to help workers who are going to be laid off, who are going to have to struggle with how to pay for health insurance, who will not have the assistance for job training that might put them back in the economy sooner, that they are going to be without assistance. They are going to be without that assistance, even though a majority of my colleagues wanted to see that legislation passed, because we could not get this cloture vote in the Senate today. I ask, if not now, when? We were told after the events of September 11, when everybody wanted to work in a bipartisan fashion to expedite the decisionmaking in the Senate, that we needed to band together. We did. We acted quickly on legislation to help and assist the airline industry. I think the vote was 98 to 0. At that same time, we were told we need to act now to help the industry. We will come back to help workers. So with earnest, Senator Carnahan, Senator Kennedy, myself, and Senator Murray from Washington have been working diligently on this proposal. Today we are sending the wrong message to the American people. We are sending the message that this body thinks it is more important to help the corporate executives and the shareholders of the airline industry than it is to help the American workers. That is absolutely the wrong message. When you think about it, consumer confidence counts for about two- thirds of our economy. In the past month of September, consumer confidence has been at its all-time low since 1996. This is an economic issue. Just as the assistance package for the airlines was an economic issue, this assistance to the workers is an economic issue. Instead of working together in a bipartisan fashion, we showed our partisan colors today by not allowing this vote to take place. The majority of Senators wish this legislation would have passed. In Washington State, where 20,000 to 30,000 workers could be laid off by the end of next year, the impact will be real. Some estimates are that a $1.29 billion loss will be felt by our local economy. That is quite significant in the State of Washington where we have already been feeling the impact of the downturn in the economy. When you think about the individual workers, yes, they will receive some unemployment benefits. What about health care? When you think about it, a typical worker in the aerospace industry might make $40,000 to $50,000. Yet the impact of losing that income and having unemployment insurance is not being able to pay for health care benefits. An average worker with a family might pay as much as $850 a month for the loss of health care benefits, on top of other bills they have to pay--for their mortgage, for their food, and for their children's education. We are sending a terrible message that it is more important to help corporate executives and shareholders than to care about the educational needs of the airline workers in our country. That is the wrong message. We need to move ahead in a bipartisan fashion to think about the ripple effect on our economy. It is not just the airline manufacturing industry, as I said, with 20,000 to 30,000 layoffs, but the hundred- plus thousand layoffs in the airline industry overall. That impact on our economy at a time when our economy is already seeing a downturn is not the kind of message we need to be sending. It is very important that we move ahead. If not now, when will we act to support workers in this country in their time of need? I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I came down to the floor this evening to reiterate the comments of my friend from Missouri, Senator Carnahan, and the comments that the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, made in expressing the frustration about the lack of progress on the aviation security bill and the need to immediately consider worker assistance in this amendment. We have spent a week now simply on the motion to proceed to consideration of one of the most important bills that we need to pass this year. Every day that we wait, critical measures to enhance the American public's confidence in the aviation system are not enacted-- and, thus, economic activity dependent on this sector is not generated. We have no time to waste. The issues that divide us are not terribly far apart. Like my colleague from Missouri, I don't want to slow this bill down. I had wanted to see both the security provisions and the worker assistance dealt with during the consideration of the airline assistance package that we passed several weeks ago. But people told us to wait, and do it after we pass that package. So I think it's time that we all step back and reflect on the importance of these measures. I call on my colleagues to reconsider these differences that remain and get down to actual consideration of this bill, and the Carnahan amendment. I would like to thank Senators Hollings and McCain for putting together an aviation security measure that will give this country the confidence to fly again. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, Senators Hollings and McCain began to work on this package immediately. The package they put together I call on my colleagues to support: First, it expands the air marshal program, improves passenger- screening requirements in our airports, and provides for hijacking training of flight crews. It requires more background checks for flight school students, strengthens cockput security, and increases perimeter security at our Nation's airports. And, it will bring the passenger screening function under Federal control, something I believe is a necessity for restoring public confidence that a well trained, well paid, and more integrated security workforce is on duty at airports in every corner of this Nation. We have a long way to go in bringing the passengers back, but I am confident they will come back. I would like to thank Senators Carnahan, Kennedy, and Majority Leader Daschle for their hard work on this legislation, particularly their effort to include airline worker assistance. It is a strong first step in easing the blow to workers in the aviation industry who will be greatly impacted. I appreciate my colleagues' leadership on this issue and their willingness to include aircraft manufacturing workers who are about to suffer the severe impacts of others in the industry. We should have done this 2 weeks ago. That is why we cannot afford to wait. The Carnahan amendment will help thousands of families who are facing economic turmoil. These are people who are suddenly left holding numerous household bills that they will soon be unable to pay. They have mortgages, car payments, credit card debt, utility bills, and school loans. What thousands of them won't have much longer is a job. Major U.S. airlines expect to cut more than 100,000 jobs this year alone and tens of thousands have already received pink slips. The September 11 attacks affected all of us very deeply. We should think about the individuals who have directly lost their economic security as a result of these events. In my State, the Boeing Company recently announced it will be forced to lay off 20,000 to 30,000 workers by the end of 2002. Those are just numbers of direct jobs that will be lost in the airline and aircraft manufacturing industries. The overall economic toll will be far greater. For Boeing workers, notices will be sent on October 12--just 2 days from now--to inform them that in 60 days they will be out of a job. So that means that on December 14--less than 2 weeks before Christmas--a significant number of workers in my State are going to be jobless. While dealing with how to meet their bills, the average Boeing worker who elects to continue to try to cover their health care coverage-- their family medical and dental--will have to pay nearly $850 per month. That is $850 a month on top of other bills that unemployed workers are going to have to face. These layoffs will certainly mean hardship for thousands of individual families, but they will also create a serious economic ripple effect in my State--the State of Washington--and nationwide. The Seattle Times recently reported that the Boeing layoffs alone will take $1.76 billion out of the economy in regions of the country where the layoffs occur. More than 70 percent of those layoffs are expected to happen in Washington, which means a loss of $1.29 billion to our region's economy. The economy is already reacting with uncertainty resulting from the many layoffs and the fear of layoffs. Consumer spending currently accounts for two-thirds of our economy. Yet consumer confidence in September fell to its lowest level since January of 1996. We can take a step--a giant step--in shoring up consumer confidence if we let the workers in the most impacted sector know, by passing this legislation, that they will not fall through the cracks. The fact is, unless we do something to instill greater consumer confidence in the aviation system, it will be difficult to sustain our larger economic growth. That is why it is so important that we act now. Our economy works best when people are working. When they lose their jobs, they need help to manage their unemployment, train for new jobs, and make an easy transition to new careers. This amendment will provide the financial assistance, job training, and health care coverage for thousands of workers in the airline and aircraft manufacturing industries--workers who are losing their jobs as a result of terrorism. The time to provide the workers relief is now, and in this bill. We have already provided, as many of my colleagues have said, the airline industry with billions of dollars to keep them flying. That was the right thing to do to bolster the economy and to maintain as many jobs as possible, but the workers who are the heart of the industry deserve equal treatment, and that includes the workers in the airline manufacturing industry. We cannot take care of the corporate needs and shareholder needs and not the needs of American workers who are the backbone of our economy. Our economy was built by their muscle and their minds, and it is a product of their hard work and creativity that continues to drive us. We cannot allow terrorism to transform our economy from a rising tide that can lift all boats into a rising storm that threatens to capsize American workers. We need to provide them with a lifeline to health care coverage, unemployment benefits, and job training. Again, I call on my colleagues to support the Carnahan amendment and the overall airline security legislation. America is watching us and asking us to act now on both of these measures. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I do appreciate the time before the vote. I thank the leadership of Senator Daschle, Senator Kennedy, Senator Carnahan, and Senator Murray for working on what is part of this package that we will discuss next week and that is worker compensation. Last week's terrorist attacks murdered thousands of innocent Americans, and left thousands more grieving for friends and loved ones. Those people are the first and most visible victims of the unprovoked terrorist attacks--but they are not the only ones. Already tens of thousands of workers at major U.S. airlines have lost their jobs due to the economic fallout of the terrorist attacks on September 11. Current projections are for a total of 100,000 airline jobs to be cut this year--nearly 10 percent of the industry workforce. Boeing, America's leading aircraft manufacturer, has announced it will lay off up to 30,000 employees by the end of 2002. These workers and their families are secondary victims of the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Congress should not leave them to bear a disproportionate share of the economic burden of terrorism. I am supportive of the overall intent of this bill and the need to shore up the airline industry, but I still have some concerns. The current airline relief package is good as far as it goes--but it does not go far enough. The airline relief package does nothing to ensure that airlines will uphold their contractual obligations and other commitments to employees. Those should be fundamental qualifications for any airline seeking government assistance. The airline relief package does nothing to directly benefit the thousands of airline and aircraft manufacturing workers who are being laid off as a result of the recent terrorist attacks. In this speech to the nation last night, President Bush told the American people ``justice will be done.'' If Congress passes an airline relief package without addressing worker assistance, we will have done a grave injustice to thousands of American workers and their families who are suffering from the aftermath. In the meantime, I think that the industry needs to step up to the plate. I am very concerned about reports that some airlines are considering invoking the war clause to avoid contractual obligations to their workers. That would be a tragic failure of their obligation to the American people to act in good faith. Let's be clear; American taxpayers are shouldering the burden of this relief package, and I think they will be angry if workers are not treated fairly while the airlines get relief. I have worked with several of my colleagues over the past several days to develop a reasonable package of worker assistance provisions, and I believe that we have a proposal that makes a great deal of sense and would take at least a small step toward helping those workers get back on their feet. That package would extend income supports, pay for the extension of healthcare coverage and provide training assistance to the affected workers. I am deeply disappointed that those provisions were not ultimately included in the bill, but pleased that the majority leader has committed to continue his work on this critical component in thy days to come. For the past 10 days, ever since the terrorist attacks my congressional colleagues have spoken eloquently and with great emotion about the courage, compassion and commitment of the relief and rescue teams who have reached out a helping had to victims of terrorist, Today, we have our own chance to help thousands of other Americans who have been harmed by terrorism. We must not turn away.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank Chairman Hollings and my colleague, Senator Murray, for their tremendous work on this bill and am particularly grateful to the Chairman for his clear understanding of the complicated law enforcement and natural resource issues facing the western states and wish to thank him for his attention to those matters in this bill. I believe that we are facing an epidemic in this nation that has the potential to be every bit as devastating as the crack cocaine epidemic of the early 1990s. That epidemic is the rapidly spreading abuse of the drug methamphetamine. Except that unlike crack cocaine, meth will not devastate our inner cities--it will instead primarily devastate our rural communities. I am sure that the Chairman is aware that rural areas are uniquely hospitable to meth production, and the paranoid users of meth seek out rural areas because they know that our law enforcement officers are spread thin, and that they lack the manpower and the resources to constantly find and destroy new labs. A study by the National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia found that eighth graders living in rural America are 104 percent more likely to use amphetamines than eighth graders in urban areas. This is the reason that we are intent on ensuring that local law enforcement agencies have as much assistance as possible in fighting the further spread of the drug. I hope that the Chairman and the members of the Subcommittee can work closely with those of us on the Judiciary Committee as we work to assess the local need for federal resources in the months to come. Again, I thank the Chairman and yield back to my colleague from Washington.

Mr. CANTWELL

Mr. CANTWELL. Mr. President, yesterday's vicious terrorist attack left an uncounted number of Americans dead and injured, and countless others grieving for friends and loved ones they have lost. We offer our hearts and prayers to those people, who have suffered a pain so deep it is beyond understanding. We support them in their pain and grief, we also share it. Every American was wounded in yesterday's attack, because it was an attack on our freedom and fundamental values as a people. Some have called this attack an act of madness, but it was not. It was an act of war--an organized, coordinated, premeditated murder of thousands of Americans, designed and carried out for political advantage. We will not allow it to go unpunished. We will stand behind our President as he brings our law enforcement, military, and intelligence forces together to find these murderers and their allies. And as he takes the steps necessary to demonstrate clearly to all the world that terrorism against our nation will not be tolerated. Here at home we must continue to work together to bind up the wounds of this nation and heal the widespread injuries and anxieties that these acts have caused. We are profoundly grateful for the efforts and sacrifices made by the relief workers, police, and firefighters--and we deeply grieve for those heroes who lost their lives yesterday in New York trying to save others. This isn't the first time terrorists have tried to attack the United States--and it won't be the last. An orchestrated terrorist attack was stopped in Washington State when terrorists bringing explosives into the United States from Canada were intercepted. They intended to plant bombs at a New Years Eve celebration in downtown Seattle and to kill as many people as they could. Fortunately, that plot was uncovered and stopped. This time, we weren't so lucky. Attacking this country is not enough to defeat it. It never has been. This is something our enemies have discovered again and again. America's history is the story of a Nation, of a people, who have repeatedly overcome what have seemed like insurmountable challenges. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, America began as a nation by overcoming tyranny. We will continue by overcoming terrorism, and we will do it without sacrificing who we are as Americans. We will do it by supporting those who have been injured and giving sympathy and support to families who have lost loved ones. We will do it by refocusing our efforts on more security efforts, and we will do it by upholding the principles that we all believe in of ``liberty and justice for all.'' I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate bill S. 149, the Export Administration Act of 2001. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his tireless efforts in crafting legislation that I believe will move us forward in this area. I am thankful for the leadership of the distinguished chair and the ranking member of the Banking Committee, the Senator from Maryland, and the Senator from Texas, and others who have worked hard to successfully address the issue of export controls in a changing economy. U.S. competitiveness in the global economy will depend heavily on our ability to foster continued innovation in our technology sector and help domestic companies gain markets overseas. Mr. President, in my State, technology-based industries are the bulwark of the Washington State economy. They now account for the largest share of employment, business activity, and labor income of any sector in the State's economic base. Roughly 38 percent of all Washington State jobs are tied to the tech sector, and the State's 286,000 tech workers earn wages that are 81 percent above the State average. This sector is gearing up to be a crucial engine for the future of the U.S. economy, and for Washington State in particular. However, to guide the continued development of this sector, we need to ensure the success of U.S. companies and their exports in the international marketplace. This legilsation streamlines the process by which companies gain approval to export their products to foreign markets. This is important because it is increasingly importer that in today's economy, a company that cannot compete globally will not succeed. Although the United States currently leads the world in technology, we are not the only technology suppliers and this lead is not guaranteed to last. We sacrifice our position as a global technology and economic leader when we limit U.S. companies' ability to sell their products abroad through a burdensome, unreasonable, and flawed export control system. Under the current system, companies lose out in the short term through restrictions on direct sales but also in the long term through loss of market share. The existing process for U.S. companies to acquire export licenses involves a complex application procedure and a Byzantine system of bureaucratic authority spread over four Federal agencies. Getting the license can take a very long time, which compromises the reliability of U.S. suppliers and makes it hard for manufacturers and customers to plan ahead. Mr. President, S. 149 will go a long way in streamlining the export control process and utlimately strengthening U.S. economic competitiveness by making three major changes: First, this bill provides a commonsense approach to the reality of the global economy by recognizing that if a certain technology is available on the mass market or made available for sale to multiple buyers, it simply does not make sense to restrict U.S. companies from these commercial opportunities. Second, this bill streamlines export control licensing by centralizing authority under one agency and streamlining the process. Let me be clear. It does not do anything to reduce the depth of the review process, nor compromise its effectiveness; it simply provides accountability and structure to ensure that decisions are made in a more timely efficient and transparent manner. Third, this bill removes the antiquated MTOPS standard for categorizing high-speed computers, and allows the President and his security team to develop a control system that is flexible and specifically tailored to keep pace with advances in technological capability. United States companies operate in a fiercely competitive environment, and we cannot afford to have outdated regulations make that competition even more difficult--especially if these regulations do not effectively meet their objectives. This is the fundamental flaw of the current control system. Although restrictions disadvantage American companies globally in the name of national security, in practice, they do not effectively enhance our security interests. I refer to the December GAO report which states: The current system of controlling the export of individual machines is ineffective in limiting countries of concern from obtaining high performance computing capabilities for military applications. This is a crucial point. Especially as we have heard many of our distinguished colleagues in this Chamber characterize this bill as putting business or economic interests over national security interests. With all due respect to the opponents of this bill, this perceived conflict of economic versus security interests is fundamentally misguided. In fact, this bill helps support our economic interests while enhancing the President's ability to ensure our national security. And you need not take my word for it. I am joined by leaders of the intelligence community, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, and President Bush who all agree that these changes will actually strengthen the President's national security authority. Instead of his having to rely on an antiquated system to control security the President will be granted direct authority to intervene in matters where he determines national security is at stake. This bill helps us focus on those export technologies that constitute true national security threats. And, make no mistake, this bill is not soft on those who break the law. For those firms and individuals who violate the established control laws, this bill authorizes substantially higher criminal and civil penalties that those included in the current system. We need to establish an export control regime that facilitates our Nation's status as a global economic and technology leader and provides a control system that allows the administration to focus on those exports that do constitute a specific security threat. We must come to realize that these are not competing goals but constitute intertwined objectives. This bill helps to achieve both, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation to improving the capacity and reliability of wastewater systems in the State of Washington. I thank my friend, Washington state's senior Senator, Patty Murray, who worked on this legislation in the last Congress and who has been a champion of clean water as a member of this body. I look forward to working with her as we build on those efforts in the years to come. The United States economy, the strongest economy in the world, is built on our human infrastructure and our physical infrastructure. We have among the most comprehensive air traffic, public transit, highway, and navigable waterway transportation systems; perhaps the most sophisticated energy transmission grids and communication networks; and the most effective drinking water and wastewater systems in the world. However, in the face of the natural aging and deterioration of these resources, combined with significant population growth, our Nation has a massive need for investment in the maintenance and improvement of our resources. Our Nation's economic health, and literally the physical health of our constituents, depends on that investment. In March, the American Society of Civil Engineers released a ``Report Card for America's Infrastructure.'' After an extensive survey of the Nation's infrastructure, the group of professionals perhaps most familiar with the technical capabilities of the roads, bridges, dams, runways, and water treatment plants, gave our Nation a cumulative grade of D+. The group estimated that our Nation needs to invest $1.3 trillion over the next five years to bring our infrastructure up to the standards that keep our overall economy out of the gridlock that has gripped many of our metropolitan areas, that will keep our families safe, and that simply befits the nature of this great Nation in striving to be the best in the world. The legislation that my colleague and I are introducing today addresses only a small piece of this infrastructure, but it is nonetheless important in addressing the growth of our region and the impacts of that growth on the water systems of one part of Washington. This legislation will authorize one project, in one area of our state, but it is essential to maintaining water quality in the Puget Sound region for fish habitat, for wetland restoration, and for meeting the growing demands for water in the many communities served by the Lakehaven Utility District. Since 1972 the Federal Government has spent about $73 billion on wastewater treatment programs. That's certainly no minor contribution, and we have made progress, the elimination of nearly 85 percent of wastewater. Unfortunately, with aging water collection and treatment systems across the Nation, it is still estimated that between 35 percent and 45 percent of U.S. surface waters do not meet current water-quality standards. Our Nation's 16,000 wastewater systems still face enormous infrastructure funding needs. While last year Congress appropriated $1.35 billion for wastewater infrastructure, and another $1.35 billion in the legislation for fiscal year 2002 that this body passed yesterday, EPA has estimated that we will need to spend $126 billion by 2016 to fully achieve secondary treatment improvements of existing facilities. So we still have a long way to go, and I intend to keep working on increasing that Federal commitment with my colleagues. Again, the legislation that we are introducing today will take steps toward solving some of these infrastructure needs in the Puget Sound area and I will take a moment to explain the legislation. The Lakehaven Utility District is one of Washington State's largest water and sewer utilities providing 10.5 million gallons of water a day to over 100,000 residents and numerous corporate facilities in south King county and parts of Pierce county. The demand for water from these sources has increased to a point that the district may soon exceed safe water production limits and has resulted in reduction of water levels in all local aquifers. The District has two secondary wastewater treatment plants that currently discharge more than 6 million gallons of water a day to Puget Sound and the district is certain that techniques successfully used in many parts of this Nation to utilize reclaimed water to manage groundwater levels could be used in this region. The district has prepared a plan to construct additional treatment systems at the two wastewater treatment plants in the district, to improve pipeline distribution systems for transporting water to the reuse areas, and systems to direct water back to the aquifer system. if we make these improvements, the district will be able to better maintain stream levels during droughts and recharge the aquifers without using additional surface water. The legislation authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to assist in the planning, land acquisition and construction of this important water reclamation project. The bill limits the Federal contribution to 25 percent and would comply with other limitations and obligations of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act. This project would begin to meet the needs of improving the wastewater systems serving a large segment of the Northwest population, and will provide additional protection for vital natural resources, using economically feasible and proven technologies. The Federal Government has a role in maintaining these systems and assisting in building additional infrastructure to handle our nation's massive needs. Thus I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this critical legislation for the state of Washington and our Nation, I look forward to working with my colleagues to expeditiously take up and pass this bill.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation to improving the capacity and reliability of wastewater systems in the State of Washington. I thank my friend, Washington state's senior Senator, Patty Murray, who worked on this legislation in the last Congress and who has been a champion of clean water as a member of this body. I look forward to working with her as we build on those efforts in the years to come. The United States economy, the strongest economy in the world, is built on our human infrastructure and our physical infrastructure. We have among the most comprehensive air traffic, public transit, highway, and navigable waterway transportation systems; perhaps the most sophisticated energy transmission grids and communication networks; and the most effective drinking water and wastewater systems in the world. However, in the face of the natural aging and deterioration of these resources, combined with significant population growth, our Nation has a massive need for investment in the maintenance and improvement of our resources. Our Nation's economic health, and literally the physical health of our constituents, depends on that investment. In March, the American Society of Civil Engineers released a ``Report Card for America's Infrastructure.'' After an extensive survey of the Nation's infrastructure, the group of professionals perhaps most familiar with the technical capabilities of the roads, bridges, dams, runways, and water treatment plants, gave our Nation a cumulative grade of D+. The group estimated that our Nation needs to invest $1.3 trillion over the next five years to bring our infrastructure up to the standards that keep our overall economy out of the gridlock that has gripped many of our metropolitan areas, that will keep our families safe, and that simply befits the nature of this great Nation in striving to be the best in the world. The legislation that my colleague and I are introducing today addresses only a small piece of this infrastructure, but it is nonetheless important in addressing the growth of our region and the impacts of that growth on the water systems of one part of Washington. This legislation will authorize one project, in one area of our state, but it is essential to maintaining water quality in the Puget Sound region for fish habitat, for wetland restoration, and for meeting the growing demands for water in the many communities served by the Lakehaven Utility District. Since 1972 the Federal Government has spent about $73 billion on wastewater treatment programs. That's certainly no minor contribution, and we have made progress, the elimination of nearly 85 percent of wastewater. Unfortunately, with aging water collection and treatment systems across the Nation, it is still estimated that between 35 percent and 45 percent of U.S. surface waters do not meet current water-quality standards. Our Nation's 16,000 wastewater systems still face enormous infrastructure funding needs. While last year Congress appropriated $1.35 billion for wastewater infrastructure, and another $1.35 billion in the legislation for fiscal year 2002 that this body passed yesterday, EPA has estimated that we will need to spend $126 billion by 2016 to fully achieve secondary treatment improvements of existing facilities. So we still have a long way to go, and I intend to keep working on increasing that Federal commitment with my colleagues. Again, the legislation that we are introducing today will take steps toward solving some of these infrastructure needs in the Puget Sound area and I will take a moment to explain the legislation. The Lakehaven Utility District is one of Washington State's largest water and sewer utilities providing 10.5 million gallons of water a day to over 100,000 residents and numerous corporate facilities in south King county and parts of Pierce county. The demand for water from these sources has increased to a point that the district may soon exceed safe water production limits and has resulted in reduction of water levels in all local aquifers. The District has two secondary wastewater treatment plants that currently discharge more than 6 million gallons of water a day to Puget Sound and the district is certain that techniques successfully used in many parts of this Nation to utilize reclaimed water to manage groundwater levels could be used in this region. The district has prepared a plan to construct additional treatment systems at the two wastewater treatment plants in the district, to improve pipeline distribution systems for transporting water to the reuse areas, and systems to direct water back to the aquifer system. if we make these improvements, the district will be able to better maintain stream levels during droughts and recharge the aquifers without using additional surface water. The legislation authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to assist in the planning, land acquisition and construction of this important water reclamation project. The bill limits the Federal contribution to 25 percent and would comply with other limitations and obligations of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act. This project would begin to meet the needs of improving the wastewater systems serving a large segment of the Northwest population, and will provide additional protection for vital natural resources, using economically feasible and proven technologies. The Federal Government has a role in maintaining these systems and assisting in building additional infrastructure to handle our nation's massive needs. Thus I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this critical legislation for the state of Washington and our Nation, I look forward to working with my colleagues to expeditiously take up and pass this bill.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. This article discusses what Americans really want to do to help family farmers. Actually, a poll was taken to understand American support for what we might do in the Senate. It said that 78 percent of the American electorate report that they are aware of government income support programs for farmers, and voters strongly approve of these programs when they are used in a fashion to correct low market prices or in case of drought or flood damage. We should be secure in knowing that our constituents want to help family farms. The family farms in my State are on the brink. They are on the brink because our Governor has declared a drought in Washington State. The drought, along with an energy crisis, is having a catastrophic effect on agriculture. In many cases water is not available for irrigation; the farmers have been unable to get the irrigated water supply they need. Right in the middle of this trouble, a severe storm occurred and greatly impacted the fruit tree industry in the State, ruining various orchards throughout the central part of Washington. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article from the Yakima Herald that reads in part: Silent and unyielding, drought stalks Central Washington. . . . Crops are wilting, jobs are evaporating, income needed to sustain family farms and rural communities is vanishing, stolen away by this drought like a thief in the night.