Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of a bill that would amend and extend the Environmental Quality Improvement Program, EQIP, to make it more user friendly, and to make it more effective in it's on-the-ground implementation. EQIP is a voluntary, Federal cost share program administered by the United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, and Farm Service Agency, FSA. The program was created to assist farmers and ranchers in implementing conservation management programs on private lands, lands that not only serve as the backbone of our Nation's food supplies but which also provide important habitat for America's wildlife, including many endangered species. It does this by providing technical, financial, and educational assistance to farmers and ranchers as they make capital improvements in irrigation and other water systems, address a wide variety of conservation problems, provide flood plain protection, support grazing lands conservation, and facilitate wildlife habitat protection programs. When everything works right, EQIP provides a tremendous benefit to producers and the environment. One example of this can be found in an EQIP-funded project underway in central Wyoming. This project, known locally as the Sand Mesa project, is allowing a group of Wyoming farmers to increase irrigation efficiency while also reducing pumping costs. They are doing this by replacing an aging canal system with a gravity-flow pipeline. Under the old system, the open air canals lost a lot of water to seepage and evaporation. The water savings from the new pipeline has turned out to be critically important in years, like this one, where drought is so prevalent in the West. The 14 miles of pipeline replaced 11 miles of open canal and committed 5,000 acre feet of water for existing wetlands. In the first year alone the new system saved at least 22,000 acre feet of water. This translates into that much more water being available in Bull Lake and Wind River for other uses. The gravity-flow pressure is also adequate to eventually run all 36 irrigation pivots on the new system, which will result in an even greater water savings. Why did this project work out so well? It wasn't because Washington, DC bureaucrats stepped in and told the community the best things to do with their money. Sand Mesa is a combined effort that unites the knowledge of local farmers with local technical experts who together are able to turn Wyoming's desert into fertile farmland. Together, the farmers and the technicians are designing a conservation and financial plan that will allow them to make the most out of their limited environmental and financial resources. The inclusion of local expertise in establishing program priorities is one of EQIP's strongest assets. Local working groups are made up of individuals who represent a wide range of interests. The groups are made up of farmers, ranchers, representatives from conservation districts, agricultural organizations, environmental groups, Native Americans, and other local, state and federal agencies. Along with the State Advisory Committees, local work groups have made a conscientious effort to make sure limited EQIP dollars are put to their best use. They have not always been successful. The only existing authority these groups have is in identifying priority areas that may, if Washington, DC bureaucrats decide, receive funding. The result of this allocation structure is that funds are not always equitably distributed. In 1999 a group of my constituents in Powell, WY approached me with serious concerns about the way EQIP regulations took authority away from local experts. EQIP was created as a part of the 1996 Farm Bill. In establishing EQIP, the Farm Bill terminated four previously existing cost share, conservation programs and replaced them with the new program. The terminated programs had relied heavily on local input to manage all aspects of implementation. Because of this history producers had come to expect local expertise to play a bigger role in the new program. EQIP regulations, however, consolidated the decision making process at the Federal level and left out local input. My consitutents were concerned that an unusually large percentage of new EQIP dollars were being directed to applicants who did not necessarily require federal assistance to complete conservation improvements, while smaller, family-owned producers, who could sincerely benefit from the program, were being overlooked. Their fears were that funding decisions were determined more by politics and grant writing ability than by the greatest need or ability to maximize environmental benefit per dollar expended. In response to their concerns, I wrote a letter to former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and asked for his help in correcting these inequities. He forwarded my request to the Wyoming NRCS offices where NRCS Wyoming State Director Ed Burton organized a team that reviewed the EQIP allocation process. This team identified a number of legislative and administrative actions which, if they are followed, would ensure the program's most effective implementation. This bill is the result of their efforts. The bill addresses four areas that the Wyoming review team noted would require specific legislative fixes. First, the bill increases allocation flexibility by defining the phrase ``maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended'' in a way that gives the Secretary of Agriculture the ability to consult with local working groups in deciding what are the best ways to guarantee that limited EQIP funds can be directed to those ranchers and farmers who can provide the most effective use of the program's cost share program. The bill would simplify and streamline the current process to make the program less time consuming to field office staff, and less frustrating to producers. The bill also would allow farmers and ranchers the flexibility to use EQIP funds when they are needed most. Too often weather conditions or other unrelated reasons make it impossible for eligible applicants to conform to Federal fiscal calendars. By allowing funds to be available until expended, this bill would keep program dollars available on a real-world schedule and would allow producers to receive cost share dollars at current costs and not at the rate in effect when the contract was written. The third change this bill would make is to adjust the program to allow contracts from three to ten years. Current EQIP requirements allow five to ten year contracts only. EQIP payments are limited generally to $10,000 per person annually, and $50,000 over the 5 to 10 year life of the contract. This is often much more than is required by farmers and could place an undue hardship on producers who do not have the ability or the desire to enter into long-term contracts. Three to ten year contracts, based on the producer's conservation plan, would allow greater flexibility to implement resource management systems. Finally, the bill would allow producers who are ready to begin work in the first year of the contract to immediately receive contract payments. Many producers who apply for EQIP are ready to install practices as soon as the contract is approved. Under current law, if practices are installed in the same year the contract is written, the producer must wait until the next fiscal year for their first payment. This delay can cause undue financial hardship, especially in an industry where cash flow is severely limited. I am proud of the efforts of the people in my State to make this program better and more efficient. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and to support our farmers in their work to feed the world.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of a bill that would amend and extend the Environmental Quality Improvement Program, EQIP, to make it more user friendly, and to make it more effective in it's on-the-ground implementation. EQIP is a voluntary, Federal cost share program administered by the United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, and Farm Service Agency, FSA. The program was created to assist farmers and ranchers in implementing conservation management programs on private lands, lands that not only serve as the backbone of our Nation's food supplies but which also provide important habitat for America's wildlife, including many endangered species. It does this by providing technical, financial, and educational assistance to farmers and ranchers as they make capital improvements in irrigation and other water systems, address a wide variety of conservation problems, provide flood plain protection, support grazing lands conservation, and facilitate wildlife habitat protection programs. When everything works right, EQIP provides a tremendous benefit to producers and the environment. One example of this can be found in an EQIP-funded project underway in central Wyoming. This project, known locally as the Sand Mesa project, is allowing a group of Wyoming farmers to increase irrigation efficiency while also reducing pumping costs. They are doing this by replacing an aging canal system with a gravity-flow pipeline. Under the old system, the open air canals lost a lot of water to seepage and evaporation. The water savings from the new pipeline has turned out to be critically important in years, like this one, where drought is so prevalent in the West. The 14 miles of pipeline replaced 11 miles of open canal and committed 5,000 acre feet of water for existing wetlands. In the first year alone the new system saved at least 22,000 acre feet of water. This translates into that much more water being available in Bull Lake and Wind River for other uses. The gravity-flow pressure is also adequate to eventually run all 36 irrigation pivots on the new system, which will result in an even greater water savings. Why did this project work out so well? It wasn't because Washington, DC bureaucrats stepped in and told the community the best things to do with their money. Sand Mesa is a combined effort that unites the knowledge of local farmers with local technical experts who together are able to turn Wyoming's desert into fertile farmland. Together, the farmers and the technicians are designing a conservation and financial plan that will allow them to make the most out of their limited environmental and financial resources. The inclusion of local expertise in establishing program priorities is one of EQIP's strongest assets. Local working groups are made up of individuals who represent a wide range of interests. The groups are made up of farmers, ranchers, representatives from conservation districts, agricultural organizations, environmental groups, Native Americans, and other local, state and federal agencies. Along with the State Advisory Committees, local work groups have made a conscientious effort to make sure limited EQIP dollars are put to their best use. They have not always been successful. The only existing authority these groups have is in identifying priority areas that may, if Washington, DC bureaucrats decide, receive funding. The result of this allocation structure is that funds are not always equitably distributed. In 1999 a group of my constituents in Powell, WY approached me with serious concerns about the way EQIP regulations took authority away from local experts. EQIP was created as a part of the 1996 Farm Bill. In establishing EQIP, the Farm Bill terminated four previously existing cost share, conservation programs and replaced them with the new program. The terminated programs had relied heavily on local input to manage all aspects of implementation. Because of this history producers had come to expect local expertise to play a bigger role in the new program. EQIP regulations, however, consolidated the decision making process at the Federal level and left out local input. My consitutents were concerned that an unusually large percentage of new EQIP dollars were being directed to applicants who did not necessarily require federal assistance to complete conservation improvements, while smaller, family-owned producers, who could sincerely benefit from the program, were being overlooked. Their fears were that funding decisions were determined more by politics and grant writing ability than by the greatest need or ability to maximize environmental benefit per dollar expended. In response to their concerns, I wrote a letter to former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and asked for his help in correcting these inequities. He forwarded my request to the Wyoming NRCS offices where NRCS Wyoming State Director Ed Burton organized a team that reviewed the EQIP allocation process. This team identified a number of legislative and administrative actions which, if they are followed, would ensure the program's most effective implementation. This bill is the result of their efforts. The bill addresses four areas that the Wyoming review team noted would require specific legislative fixes. First, the bill increases allocation flexibility by defining the phrase ``maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended'' in a way that gives the Secretary of Agriculture the ability to consult with local working groups in deciding what are the best ways to guarantee that limited EQIP funds can be directed to those ranchers and farmers who can provide the most effective use of the program's cost share program. The bill would simplify and streamline the current process to make the program less time consuming to field office staff, and less frustrating to producers. The bill also would allow farmers and ranchers the flexibility to use EQIP funds when they are needed most. Too often weather conditions or other unrelated reasons make it impossible for eligible applicants to conform to Federal fiscal calendars. By allowing funds to be available until expended, this bill would keep program dollars available on a real-world schedule and would allow producers to receive cost share dollars at current costs and not at the rate in effect when the contract was written. The third change this bill would make is to adjust the program to allow contracts from three to ten years. Current EQIP requirements allow five to ten year contracts only. EQIP payments are limited generally to $10,000 per person annually, and $50,000 over the 5 to 10 year life of the contract. This is often much more than is required by farmers and could place an undue hardship on producers who do not have the ability or the desire to enter into long-term contracts. Three to ten year contracts, based on the producer's conservation plan, would allow greater flexibility to implement resource management systems. Finally, the bill would allow producers who are ready to begin work in the first year of the contract to immediately receive contract payments. Many producers who apply for EQIP are ready to install practices as soon as the contract is approved. Under current law, if practices are installed in the same year the contract is written, the producer must wait until the next fiscal year for their first payment. This delay can cause undue financial hardship, especially in an industry where cash flow is severely limited. I am proud of the efforts of the people in my State to make this program better and more efficient. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and to support our farmers in their work to feed the world.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. As the chairman is aware, I feel the DPA is an important tool for supporting our national defense and for ensuring that our armed forces have the latest equipment available, in a timely manner, and that they are prepared and able to defend our Nation's interests. When used properly, the DPA not only ensures military contracts are filled in a timely manner, but it also ensures that industries are protected from liabilities that could arise from being required to prioritize military requests ahead of other private agreements. I am concerned, however, that the DPA also has a number of possible applications that may not be in the best interest of the United States. It is my fear that, in the name of national security, the DPA can be used in a way that creates a serious rippling effect on many other sectors of our Nation. The chairman is aware that I have supported just a one-year reauthorization of this act, and that I feel it is important that we conduct a complete review and reevaluation of the act to make sure it gives the President the power he needs to conduct his business without exposing the rest of the nation to possible abuse.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the Senator from Maryland, Chairman Sarbanes, as to the status of legislation reauthorizing the Defense Production Act?

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001 in the Senate. This important legislation, which is based on the findings of the bipartisan Web-Based Education Commission on which I served, will accomplish the critical goal of giving more students in both rural and urban areas access to distance education by expanding Internet-based educational opportunities at the post-secondary level. Specifically, this legislation, which is cosponsored by Senators Dorgan, Frist and Hutchinson, will remove three regulatory barriers that are slowing the growth of distance education in our nation. First, it will modify the Department of Education's ``50 percent rule'' that requires institutions that are eligible for Title IV student aid programs under the Higher Education Act to offer at least 50 percent of their instruction in a classroom-based environment. This legislation will instead allow institutions to offer more than 50 percent of their classes by telecommunications methods if the institution already participates in the student loan programs and their student loan default rate is less than 10 percent for the three preceding years. This ensures that distance education options are available to schools with a proven track record of successfully administering federal financial aid programs. Second, it will eliminate the ``12 hour rule.'' This rule defines a week of instructional time to mean 12 hours of ``regularly scheduled instruction, examinations, or preparation for examination'' for programs that are offered in non-standard terms. This legislation will instead require that programs offered on a non-standard term, such as those offered by the University of Wyoming and the Western Governors University, be held to the same accountability standards as those offered on a traditional semester or quarter basis. Third, this legislation will clarify the incentive compensation restrictions that were passed by Congress in 1992 with the intent of prohibiting colleges and universities that participate in federal student financial aid programs from paying any commission, bonus, or other incentive payments to third parties based on their success in enrolling new students. These restrictions, while well intentioned, have had the unintended consequence of preventing some higher education institutions from using third-party Web portals. This practice, which is fairly common and often necessary for many distance education and Internet based education programs, provides prospective students with access to information about the programs they offer and admissions requirements. This legislation clarifies the incentive compensation prohibitions in the Higher Education Act by allowing the use of third-party Web portals and allowing schools to appropriately reward employees for their job performance. The bill preserves the intent of the 1992 law by stating that non-salary payments to those directly involved in recruiting students or awarding financial aid are not allowed. It will also allow the Secretary of Education to impose appropriate sanctions against an institution if a violation occurs. This change to the regulation will continue to ensure that Federal student aid programs are free from fraud and abuse, while allowing prospective students to gain information about all of the post- secondary educational opportunities that are available. As some of you may know, I have a very personal interest in the issue of distance education. I saw how effective it can be because my wife, Diana, received her masters degree in adult education by taking classes through the University of Wyoming while living here in Washington. After witnessing the high quality of the course work, the responsiveness to students' needs, and the ``technology flexibility'' that enabled Diana's experience, I have become a strong advocate for distance learning. I am especially pleased to be able to sponsor this legislation at a time when the University of Wyoming is experiencing record breaking enrollment in Online UW, the web-based educational arm of the University of Wyoming Outreach School. I was impressed to learn that as of August 28, 2001 class enrollments totaled 1,164, which is a dramatic increase over the 140 students who enrolled in the spring of 1999 when the University launched this program. In addition to the enrollment growth, the number of courses that are being offered is also expanding. During the fall 2001 semester 43 online courses are available at the University of Wyoming, supporting seven degree programs or certificates. It is my hope that with the passage of this legislation, programs like those at the University of Wyoming will be able to expand even further to serve more interested students. In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to Congressman Johnny Isakson and his staff. As the Vice Chair of the Web-Based Education Commission, Congressman Isakson introduced this legislation in the House earlier this year and has successfully steered it through the House Education and the Workforce Committee, where it passed overwhelmingly on August 1, 2001. I look forward to the same success here in the Senate so that we might open up the possibilities of distance education to a new generation of students.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I rise to make a few remarks concerning the Air Transportation System Stabilization Act. First, I would like to associate myself with the comments by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions and the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles. I know we need to take immediate action to keep the airline industry in the air. The last few days have taught us that air travel is the heart of our economy. Many businesses have been hurt by the events last week. I am disappointed that help has not been offered particularly to the small businesses. But I realize that those businesses will be out of business if air travel ceases or is greatly reduced. Airlines are a lifeline for many occupations. This morning I had many concerns about this bill. I am pleased that many of my suggestions were taken and now appear in the bill. Other parts of this bill can and must be reworked in the days to come. I am pleased at the recognition that will assure essential air service, help to airlines that serve small, rural communities throughout the nation. I am pleased that we remembered the regional air carriers and proportionally helped them. I understand the reluctance of the insurance companies to continue to insure air carriers, because of the uncertainty of the exposure, so I am pleased that an insurance provision was provided. I am pleased that provisions were put into the bill that would remove concern and provide assurance that the grant money will not be golden parachutes for highly paid executives. I know the bill now has provisions for audits to be sure the money is spent within the criteria set out. I would feel more comfortable if the audits were mandatory instead of optional. Taxpayer money always comes with strings. I understand the need for expediting compensation to victims, but I'm not sure that we have done that. Perhaps we have just opened up a trial lawyer's dream. I have been assured that section will be reworked to give assurance that the money will go to the victims and not just to attorneys, and that the taxpayer won't be the one providing all the compensation. I had hoped that the Federal obligation would be available only for those who took the expedited avenue of resolving their loss using the Special Master. I applaud my colleagues and the Administration in expediting aid to the nation's airlines under this bill for damages arising out of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. This initial funding will provide the resources necessary to assure continuity and stabilization of the airline industry. By including direct cash assistance, loan guarantees, increased air transportation safety, and prospective and prior liability provisions, the bill will ensure the safety of the American public and restore confidence in our economic foundations. The provisions of this bill are designed to restore the confidence of airline customers and industry investors and provide a bridge of assistance to the new environment in which the industry will need to operate. I am pleased that the bill states that the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary should take appropriate action to ensure that all communities, both rural and urban communities, that had scheduled air service before September 11, 2001, continue to receive adequate air transportation service and that essential air service to small communities continues without interruption. In addition, the bill authorized an appropriation of $120 million for the Essential Air Service program. This additional funding in the EAS program will greatly benefit the rural communities in Wyoming. Resumption of normal air travel is essential for our commerce and the mobility for our way of life. We have to act to keep our airlines flying without throwing the free market out of the window. These businesses need to show that their requests for assistance are tied to the recent terrorist attacks and not debts incurred prior to September 11, 2001. They also need to show that the financial assistance they receive will be used wisely, keeping their planes flying and their employees working. I believe that the airlines should submit a business plan to the U.S. Department of Transportation to justify why they need the grant funding and loan guarantees and what the funds will be used for. Within the business plan, the airlines should state specific provisions that executive management of the airlines should not receive pay increases greater than the cost-of-living adjustment and they should not receive any bonuses due to the funding allocated to them by this bill. I believe this emergency funding for the airlines should help all airline employees, not just the executive management. I have been assured there will be specific criteria when directing federal funding to the airlines in the form of a loan guarantee. For example, the bill gives the President the authority to issue the $10 billion in loan guarantees to the airline industry subject to terms and conditions as he seems necessary. We must assure there is no abuse and that the bill protects the federal government who is the U.S. taxpayer from incurring costs from the possible defaulting on the loans. Traditionally, loan guarantee programs ensure that the General Accounting Office, GAO, can exercise its authority by auditing the business that receives a loan guarantee. The administration should include a provision that mandates the GAO act as the auditor of this loan guarantee program. At present, an audit may be conducted by the GAO and U.S. Department of Transportation if the Comptroller General and Transportation Secretary deem necessary. We have to ensure that the funds are spent accordingly in relation to the intended purpose of this bill. Furthermore, the bill should more directly address the higher costs incurred by commuter and short-haul carriers and issues arising from recent changes in air transportation availability to small- and medium- sized communities. These regional airlines provide the only air service between the major airports and the more than a hundred small- and medium-sized communities in the West. I am committed to supporting an economically strong airline industry for the West and the nation. Due to last week's tragic events, we have realized that interdependence is key to keeping our economy strong, if planes are flying, then the motels are being occupied and the restaurants are being utilized. I look forward to supporting my colleagues in restoring public confidence in the fact that the United States has the strongest and safest airline system in the world.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001 in the Senate. This important legislation, which is based on the findings of the bipartisan Web-Based Education Commission on which I served, will accomplish the critical goal of giving more students in both rural and urban areas access to distance education by expanding Internet-based educational opportunities at the post-secondary level. Specifically, this legislation, which is cosponsored by Senators Dorgan, Frist and Hutchinson, will remove three regulatory barriers that are slowing the growth of distance education in our nation. First, it will modify the Department of Education's ``50 percent rule'' that requires institutions that are eligible for Title IV student aid programs under the Higher Education Act to offer at least 50 percent of their instruction in a classroom-based environment. This legislation will instead allow institutions to offer more than 50 percent of their classes by telecommunications methods if the institution already participates in the student loan programs and their student loan default rate is less than 10 percent for the three preceding years. This ensures that distance education options are available to schools with a proven track record of successfully administering federal financial aid programs. Second, it will eliminate the ``12 hour rule.'' This rule defines a week of instructional time to mean 12 hours of ``regularly scheduled instruction, examinations, or preparation for examination'' for programs that are offered in non-standard terms. This legislation will instead require that programs offered on a non-standard term, such as those offered by the University of Wyoming and the Western Governors University, be held to the same accountability standards as those offered on a traditional semester or quarter basis. Third, this legislation will clarify the incentive compensation restrictions that were passed by Congress in 1992 with the intent of prohibiting colleges and universities that participate in federal student financial aid programs from paying any commission, bonus, or other incentive payments to third parties based on their success in enrolling new students. These restrictions, while well intentioned, have had the unintended consequence of preventing some higher education institutions from using third-party Web portals. This practice, which is fairly common and often necessary for many distance education and Internet based education programs, provides prospective students with access to information about the programs they offer and admissions requirements. This legislation clarifies the incentive compensation prohibitions in the Higher Education Act by allowing the use of third-party Web portals and allowing schools to appropriately reward employees for their job performance. The bill preserves the intent of the 1992 law by stating that non-salary payments to those directly involved in recruiting students or awarding financial aid are not allowed. It will also allow the Secretary of Education to impose appropriate sanctions against an institution if a violation occurs. This change to the regulation will continue to ensure that Federal student aid programs are free from fraud and abuse, while allowing prospective students to gain information about all of the post- secondary educational opportunities that are available. As some of you may know, I have a very personal interest in the issue of distance education. I saw how effective it can be because my wife, Diana, received her masters degree in adult education by taking classes through the University of Wyoming while living here in Washington. After witnessing the high quality of the course work, the responsiveness to students' needs, and the ``technology flexibility'' that enabled Diana's experience, I have become a strong advocate for distance learning. I am especially pleased to be able to sponsor this legislation at a time when the University of Wyoming is experiencing record breaking enrollment in Online UW, the web-based educational arm of the University of Wyoming Outreach School. I was impressed to learn that as of August 28, 2001 class enrollments totaled 1,164, which is a dramatic increase over the 140 students who enrolled in the spring of 1999 when the University launched this program. In addition to the enrollment growth, the number of courses that are being offered is also expanding. During the fall 2001 semester 43 online courses are available at the University of Wyoming, supporting seven degree programs or certificates. It is my hope that with the passage of this legislation, programs like those at the University of Wyoming will be able to expand even further to serve more interested students. In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to Congressman Johnny Isakson and his staff. As the Vice Chair of the Web-Based Education Commission, Congressman Isakson introduced this legislation in the House earlier this year and has successfully steered it through the House Education and the Workforce Committee, where it passed overwhelmingly on August 1, 2001. I look forward to the same success here in the Senate so that we might open up the possibilities of distance education to a new generation of students.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, yesterday was a day of great darkness, the likes of which we have never seen before. Yesterday we saw the face of evil in a cowardly and reprehensible act against the United States. The tragic events were a grave reminder of our Nation's vulnerability. Sadly, the light of a new day has continued to show us that the horror of yesterday was all too real. Our worst nightmare has come true. We all lost something yesterday, something very precious and something very real. I don't think we will ever again look at the footage of terrorist activities overseas quite the same way again. The comforting thought that protected us in the past, ``It can't happen here'' is no longer comforting, because it has been shown to us in very real and stark terms--it can happen here. President Bush has stated his resolve to find those responsible for this attack and bring them to justice. I support him in this effort and I am confident that President Bush, together with the members of Congress and the people of America will come together in the next days and weeks as we mourn our dead and honor the memory of those who died in the attacks or subsequent rescue efforts. Yesterday threatens to increase the anger we already feel in our hearts and make us cry out for revenge against someone, anyone. We will not allow that to happen. We all know the real goal of terrorism is to turn neighbor against neighbor to make us fear and mistrust the people of our communities. With God's strength and support, and our faith and trust in Him, we can show that we are bigger and stronger than that. Our strength as a nation comes from the different backgrounds, cultures, talents and abilities of our people. E Pluribus Unum, One out of many, is our Nation's motto for a reason. Yesterday we saw people of every race, religion and creed working together as Americans to help those affected by yesterday's attacks. We will continue that work in the coming weeks, and, as we do, we will do something we have not had to do for many, many years. The task of cleaning up, repairing and building that looms before us is great, even for the greatest nation on earth. Yesterday's events will raise a lot of questions that will need to be answered as we do our work. How did it happen? Why did it happen? What can we do to ensure it does not happen again? They are all good questions and they will be investigated and answered. Vice President Cheney has already been working on ways to improve and increase our intelligence gathering efforts. Now these improvements must be given the highest priority. As the Ranking Member of the International Operations and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, I pledge my time and my efforts to work with Members on both sides of the aisle and the Administration to address all the issues raised by these cowardly attacks. As do most Americans, I find it difficult to understand how someone could plan and carry out an attack such as the one we witnessed yesterday. Part of our work will be to review and reconsider our foreign policies and to increase our awareness and sensitivity to the fact that our actions abroad are not always supported by some members of the international community. We need to be aware that there are those who hate the United States for who we are and what we represent in the world. There are those who view our nation and the freedom we represent as a threat to themselves and their way of life. We will rebuild our cities, we will refresh our spirit, and we will renew our commitment to the principles upon which our country was founded. As Mayor Giuliani said this morning, as we roll up our sleeves and get to work, we will emerge stronger than ever and face the future with a renewed spirit, united more strongly as one nation under God than we ever have been before. It is time for us to reassure each other, to reach out to our neighbors, and to console our children that the world isn't a bad place, although there are bad people who live in it to be sure. As we prepared to go to bed last night, I thought about the days years ago when I, as a father, would listen to my children say their prayers before they went to sleep at night. ``And now I lay me down to sleep. I pray the Lord my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take.'' I thought about our children all over this country and around this world who went to bed last night who said those words and found a terrifying and frightening new meaning in them. They will all need the calm and reassuring touch of their mothers and fathers to assure them that they are safe and we are there to protect them. Those that are responsible for this act of terrorism tried to take our spirit just as certainly as they tried to take as many lives as they could. They acted without regard for those in their path, just as they acted without regard for our freedoms or our way of life. There is a price that will be paid for their actions. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but we will soon know who is responsible for these terrible acts of violence and they will be held accountable. There will be a time for that, someday in the future. As the Bible tells us, there is a time for everything and a season for all things. Now is the time to find the facts, develop a plan and make sure that every step we take in these next few days is warranted and necessary. For we are the most powerful nation on earth, and that brings with it a certain responsibility. The world looks to us now to see what we will do next, how we will handle the leadership the world has seen us exercise so well for so many years. Now is also a time for healing and rebirth--for coming together in pride as Americans. Now is the time to renew our commitment to freedom and the principles upon which we are founded. Now is the time to reach out in prayer to God and to each other. But for those who hear the sound of my voice and think we may falter in our commitment to America and our way of life, make no mistake. The light of freedom may flicker from time to time, but it always returns to a brilliance and luster just like the torch held proudly aloft by the Statue of Liberty. One thing the terrorists never understood is that we are a nation of more than just symbols, and landmarks and monuments, though they are all important and beloved by us all. We are a nation of strength and spirit and freedom and we will never yield our commitment to our principles, to each other and to our shared future. Last night, today, and for a long time to come, people in Wyoming, in Washington, in New York and all over the country will be holding prayer vigils, attending Church services, and reaching out to one another in an embrace of faith, hope and love. That is how we will continue, one people, one step at a time, to assure each other of our support for each other and to ensure that this terrible tragedy never happens again. We also join in prayer for the victims of this tragedy, for their families, friends and loved ones. We proudly recognize the efforts of our brave firemen, police and rescue workers who risked their lives to help those in need. Your efforts were greatly appreciated. You will never be forgotten. Yesterday we witnessed both chambers of this great Congress come together as one, united in plan, purpose and resolve. May we continue to work together to make our nation stronger and the world a better place for us all. It won't be easy, but that never has not and never will stop us. May God bless and keep us all firm in our resolve.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I will make a few remarks after the vote particularly to thank Senator Sarbanes for his understanding of the bill. I yield the floor to Senator Sarbanes.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we are entering the period where we make a few last minute comments before the 4 o'clock vote regarding the Export Administration Act, a process we have been working on for 3 years, a law that expired in 1994, and we have had 12 attempts at change since that time. The last time the law was revised, people were wearing bell bottoms and polyester suits and Jimmy Carter was in office. It has been time for a change and recognition of that. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers endorsing the bill and recognizing the need for this be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent a letter received from many of the computer folks, including Dell Computer, IBM Corporation, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, NCR, Motorola, and Unisys, pointing out the need for this legislation, and the fact they are happy with it, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. I take this time to thank Senators Gramm and Sarbanes for their tremendous leadership and for entrusting Senator Johnson and I to do some of the background work before the legislation reached this stage. It is very important. I thank Marty Gruenberg on Senator Sarbanes's staff; Katherine McGuire, my legislative director; and Joel Oswald, now a Texas A&M student who worked for 3 years on the bill; Mary O'Brien; Kara Calvert; on Senator Johnson's staff, Naomi Camper and Paul Nash; from the staff of Senator Hagel, Dave Dorman; and the staff of Senator Bayh, Catherine Wojtasik; and other staff includes Jim Jochum who previously worked for Senator Gramm. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the summary of the EAA discussions we have had to this point that have been contributed on a number of people's behalf to make the bill come together and be successful.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee again for his emphasis. It is important that there be updates on the different procedures, particularly the ones that are done through memos of understanding between the agencies. We appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Tennessee to allow that to continue to be done that way so there is more flexibility to react to current crises under that kind of ability. We have prepared a letter to that effect, and we will be sending it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, the managers' amendment to S. 149 adds a new provision to address a pressing humanitarian issue: flight safety. U.S. aircraft manufacturers have sold commercial passenger aircraft internationally since the 1950s. Moreover, some European-made commercial aircraft are made with U.S. components. As a result, U.S. aircraft are used widely around the world. The safe operation of these aircraft depends on the replacement of worn parts, repair of unsafe components, and receipt of technical bulletins and airworthiness directives. These parts, services, and information are highly specialized, and often are available only from the original manufacturer. Over the years, several nations that operate U.S.-made aircraft, or European-made aircraft that incorporate U.S. parts, have become subject to U.S. embargo. As a result, U.S.-made aircraft items cannot be exported to those countries. This poses a significant threat to the safe operation of those airplanes. Without replacement parts, repair, and technical information, the planes literally may fall out of the sky, with terrible humanitarian implications for passengers and those on the ground. We all remember with horror the terrible 1992 crash, resulting from a failed part, of an El-Al plane into an Amsterdam apartment complex. All 4 crew and an estimated 70 Amsterdam residents were killed. The risks are real for U.S. citizens traveling to embargoed countries, or making up part of United Nations delegations. Citizens of U.S. allies are at risk. And not least of all, innocent citizens of embargoed countries are particularly vulnerable. Under current law, the administration has some flexibility to allow flight safety exports to nations such as Sudan and Syria. However, exports to Iran or Iraq require a presidential waiver--a process that takes years and is rarely invoked. The difficulty of obtaining such a waiver has meant that U.S. manufacturers cannot provide critical flight safety parts or information to those nations. The managers' amendment addresses this humanitarian issue while retaining the integrity of the embargo. It provides that aircraft equipment exports to comply with safety requirements for commercial passenger aircraft may be authorized on a case-by-case basis. It is tightly circumscribed: it applies only to parts for civil aircraft used for commercial passengers, and it requires a case-by-case analysis. Senators Dodd, Bond, Murray, and Roberts are keenly interested in this provision and should be commended for addressing this critical humanitarian problem.

Mr. ENZI. I, too, thank the Senator from Tennessee for his cooperation and diligence in the months of working on this bill with us, and with the 59 other changes in the bill as well, and for his willingness to work with us on this change. We are happy to accept it.

Mr. ENZI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, again, I appreciate the care, concern, and detail in which the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Arizona, and others who have participated on this, have expressed their concerns about the deemed export controls. We do recognize that the problem is not primarily in the private sector; that it is primarily in the government and educational and health institutions. The private sector has some proprietary rights they try to preserve, but it would be a problem there, too, and we wanted it addressed in all those sectors.

Mr. ENZI. Again, we appreciate the participation in the 59 changes before and now this change. It shows the level of detail in which Senator Thompson and Senator Kyl have approached this bill. We appreciate this change. We are willing to accept it.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, what I would like to do is take some time, because I did not have an opportunity just before the vote, to thank all the people who worked on and participated in this bill that we have just completed, and that includes the people who are both for the bill and against the bill. Everybody made a contribution on this one. As I mentioned before, all 100 Senators are interested in national security--deeply interested, deathly interested in national security. That has been demonstrated by the work that has been put in on this bill. They are also extremely interested that the economy of the country advance. We just passed a bill that will allow both of those things to happen, and happen safely. We have been without the kind of a bill that we have needed for a long period of time. We just passed one that is considerably better than what we had in place, and is even better than the 1979 act when it was extended. So we are in a position now where we can go, with some real credibility, to the House side to ask them to move the bill forward and to join with the White House in getting this passed quickly, as the White House asked. And, of course, we will be asking for all the people who have an interest in this bill to also help work on the House side. We know they will take quick action and that we will get this huge problem to the United States solved. I would like to particularly thank those people who have worked closely on the bill. I will start with Senator Gramm, who allowed me to be the subcommittee chairman and get this assignment. I have to tell you, when I first got the assignment, I thought, this has failed about 12 times so I assume this is one of those tasks that freshman Senators get. I didn't expect much to happen on it, but we began the process of learning about it, and the Cox commission report came out. Of course, it was just a secret report at first, but it still got publicity that brought to the attention of the American people the problem of secrets being stolen from the United States. That raised the level of this bill so that I and Senator Johnson of South Dakota could work through our subcommittee to really find out what was happening with it, to see how those things in the Cox commission and other reports, as they came out, fit into this bill. We put them into that bill, worked together to find solutions, met-- ``interminably'' might not be the right word, but it feels like the right word sometimes--with a number of groups and anybody who was interested in the bill and worked hard to heighten the interest of those people in the bill. Fortunately, Senator Johnson and I got to work under the direction of Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes, two vastly different personalities with different ways of working. I have to say that working under those two people on any piece of legislation is an education. They are very considerate in everything they do. They both study it to a very deep knowledge. They ask penetrating questions, and they have that ability and sense of when to move forward and when to hold back. Particularly when you have the combination of Senator Sarbanes and Senator Gramm, you have these two personalities that cover all aspects of the spectrum of dealing with people. Of course, with both of them, you have vast years of knowledge of doing this kind of work, which is different than any other job I think anybody can have. They recognize the ways to work with people and the mechanisms to do it and have just been tremendous in guidance as we have gone through this. I would be real remiss if I did not place some special thanks on all of the staff people who worked on this. Again, staff do a lot of the preparation, a lot of the study. They do meetings among themselves and then bring the results of those meetings to us for resolution. There were some real experts involved in this, people who really know how to network. And I would be surprised if there has been any other bill that had the kind of trust between staff and between Senators that this bill has had. We worked on it for a long time. Of course, that built up the trust as we slowly got to the point where we had a draft to put through. During that time, we did find out that it was an issue that affected everybody in the country. So then, of course, it affects both sides of the aisle. This is one of those examples of bipartisan effort. It results in a bipartisan vote and gives us some real strength as we continue this process. Again, I thank my fellow Senator, Mr. Johnson, for his efforts on this bill and all of the different presentations we had to give over the course of time to different groups as we got them to buy in. Everybody had to come to the middle on this one because previous efforts had gone too far in one direction or the other. As a result, it picked up a majority in opposition. One thing about passing a bill is that to pass it, you have to get it through all of the different steps. A ``no'' vote at any one of those steps kind of stops it dead in its tracks and sends you back to ground zero. We are at the halfway point on this one now. We have gotten it through several votes successfully. It is much easier sometimes to create confusion and pick up the votes on the other side. I appreciate the Senators who helped to promote and to clarify this. Again, the clarification came from both sides. Senator Thompson and Senator Kyl particularly are to be congratulated for their tenacity at bringing up different points. You will find on the list of meetings that we put in that a lot of those meetings were with those two individuals. And as I mentioned numerous times, we put in 59 changes. One of the biggest changes, of course, is the override that the President has. We gave a trump to the President on everything in the bill. We put in some new sections, and we said that the President has the right to set those aside in specific instances. It makes a huge difference in how this bill will work. It really will allow the limited resources that we have--and we are increasing those resources, but they are still limited--to concentrate on the worst situations and to make them better. That is what we are trying to achieve with the bill. I would also like to thank the Majority Leader, Senator Daschle, for his strong support and willingness to bring the bill to the floor for debate. Senator Reid was also instrumental in negotiating the bill to the floor for debate. His support and guidance was very much appreciated. Again, I thank everybody who worked on the bill. I particularly appreciate all of the hours Senator Sarbanes has spent on the floor this week, not only in debate, in clarifying things, which showed his vast depth of knowledge of the bill, but particularly with the administrative work he did as he helped to get people together who needed to talk about different parts of this bill. His steady hand certainly played a big role in the kind of vote we received. I again thank everybody who worked on the bill and congratulate everybody who worked on the bill. That is both those who were for and those who were against. We will see everybody on the House side. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield.

Mr. ENZI. I would add my thanks and appreciation for all the hard work, particularly of Senator Thompson and Senator Kyl and their staffs and Senator Gramm and his staff. The meetings and the work on this did go late into the evening last night and began this morning so we could have as little interruption and expedition of the business that needs to be done by the Senate. Their cooperation, their attention to detail, and their willingness to discuss throughout the whole process the last 3 years we have been working on it is very much appreciated, particularly the hours they and their staff put in last evening and early this morning.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments. I feel compelled to comment on a couple of the items he raised. There were several mentions of jurisdiction in there. I know there has been some jurisdictional friction during this entire time that we have worked on the bill over the last 3 years. I hope the Senators feel they have been included in discussions. We have lists of a lot of meetings in which we participated. We mentioned the 59 changes that have been made in the bill as a result of those meetings, probably the most significant of which is the enhanced powers. We mentioned foreign availability. I have to tell you that the foreign availability in this bill was in the 1979 act, but it has gotten some attention because we put in mass market this time. Because of comments raised by the Senator from Arizona and several of his colleagues, we have a provision in here that provides for some Presidential enhanced powers that trump all of that. We hope the President won't trump all of that. We hope the President will work to have some multilateral controls over these foreign availability items instead of just the unilateral system that we are working now. ``Unilateral'' means we are letting the rest of the world sell this stuff to anybody they want. ``Multilateral'' means we work together to make sure anybody who makes that item doesn't sell it to the bad guys. We have to have the multilateral control. Unilateral doesn't work. Unless we put the foreign availability in there with a suggestion--and it becomes a suggestion because of the paragraph we put in at your suggestion with the Presidential enhanced powers--it is only a suggestion because the President can trump that, but hopefully he will work with these other countries and see, if a product that ought to be controlled is made in a foreign country, if we can get the foreign country to agree on who the bad guys are and agree they will not sell it to them. I appreciate the Senator's suggestion on that. I think it is the most dramatic change that is in the entire bill. On the jurisdictional question, the 1979 act was written by the Banking Committee. It was their jurisdiction back then. It has been advanced a number of times since then, each time by the Banking Committee. Of course, everybody recognizes the world is considerably different now than it was in 1979. We do not have some of the same capability because COCOM, which was a multilateral agreement, no longer exists. It is now a voluntary agreement instead of an enforced agreement. Throughout that whole uncertain time from 1979 until the Iron Curtain came down, the Banking Committee held the jurisdiction over export controls--not arms controls but export controls. Under the committee's oversight, the EAA and its predecessor, the Export Control Act, served as the key export control authority throughout the cold war and I think significantly contributed to its demise. In fact, the Banking Committee has long had broad national security jurisdiction which has been rivaled by few other committees. Among the laws within its jurisdiction are the Trading with the Enemy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Defense Production Act, the Exon-Florio amendment, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, the Export Administration Act. Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate makes clear that the Banking Committee has sole jurisdiction over dual-use export controls. Paragraph (d)(1) states explicitly that ``all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to'' export controls shall be referred to the Banking Committee. Nowhere else in the rules is there any mention of export controls with regard to any other committee. The Banking Committee's jurisdiction over export controls is fully authorized and appropriate. That is why we have been doing the work on this bill. The act has expired a number of times. When it expires, the only action that can be taken is an Executive order by the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That just does not cut it, and I think everybody agrees that does not cut it. We need to do something a little more dramatic than that. We can go back to that act of 1979, but pretty much everybody agrees that is inadequate at this point in time and that there should be some differences made. There have been a number of studies done on that--one of them was quoted yesterday--that Secretary Rumsfeld participated in before he became the Secretary. Yesterday we presented a letter showing that Secretary Rumsfeld thinks this bill is an improved version of the 1979 act and will solve the problems about which we have been talking. There are things that need to be done in addition to this. I do think continual review of our export policy is necessary. I appreciate the suggestion of the blue ribbon panel. It has some capability to take a look at this in the interim while we operate under this new act so we have something substantial in place that will protect us beyond an Executive order or even beyond the extension of the 1979 act. I will have additional comments later. I did want to clear up those things because we debated them a bit yesterday. There is some foreign availability, but we have a Presidential trump done at the Senator's suggestion and, again, a number of other changes. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for his concern and his consideration and, again, for all of the effort he has put into this bill. He has been responsible, along with several others, for a number of the changes that have been made in this bill. But there are a couple of things I need to emphasize based on the comments he just made. One of them is in relation to the comment that there should have been somebody studying the issue. There have been people studying the issue. There have been a lot of people studying the issue, not to mention all of the Senate and House hearings that have been held, particularly since 1994. When the Export Administration Act expired, we began a study. And one of the things this town is not short on is documentation. We document everything. That gives you a chance to go back and look at what everybody thought in the history of this country, but particularly on the history of this issue. It was an opportunity to go back and see what kinds of problems there were and what the pitfalls were that kept the reauthorization from happening again, what kept the updates from happening. We have been very close, throughout this whole process, of having it happen again. We talked about balance. One of the balance things that happens in this bill is that the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the intelligence community get a greater say through this bill than they had under the Export Act of 1979, that got reapproved through 1994. There is more balance in this bill if you want Defense, State, and intelligence to have more of a say. They have more say under this bill than they had before. There is a continuation of a lot of the things they had before, but that is because they all agreed on them. But what we have is an endorsement from State and Defense on this particular bill saying this is a better situation than what we are operating under now. So we are trying to get that done. In relation to the applications, actually, 99.4 percent of the applications get approved, only .6 percent get denied. So what does that tell you? A thing that it does not exactly say is that on the 99.4 percent that get approved, a lot of those have conditions. What this committee gets to do is put conditions on the application. But there is still a vast number that are readily approved. Why are we making the licensing application folks take all of their time on items that will be approved that are routinely, regularly approved at the present time? Without this bill, we are forcing them to concentrate the bulk of their effort--probably about 90 percent of their time--on items that do not need to be considered, where all of these agencies say: This is an automatic for us, but there is no way for us to kick this automatic out of the process. We have to spend the bulk of our time working on things that are absolutely routine. Wouldn't it be nice if we could concentrate on the 10 percent of the things that really need some conditions, that really need some concentration, that perhaps need to be denied? During this process, I had an enforcement officer on exports assigned to my office because I wanted a greater understanding of how the enforcement process worked. That includes the postshipment verifications. I have had people assigned to my office who worked with the applications, and we went to the different agencies to see how they participated, how they wanted to be able to participate, and whether their rights and abilities were being stomped on by the old process. I think we have arrived at a bill that the agencies agree they have a say and that they can do a better job of enforcing those things that need to be enforced. Senator Kyl mentioned there were some arms control problems, probably a nuclear gun. That sounds like arms control which is not export control. Maybe somebody was trying to fudge it in there. I have to mention that there is a very small provision in this bill-- actually a big provision--where we provide additional resources to people doing the enforcement. One of the specific things we put in there is some training for freight forwarders. These are the people who look at those 30-foot long cylinders and say: What the heck is in here; could it be something damaging to the United States? That is going to be some enforcement that we haven't had before that will help solve the situation. When we are talking about who ought to be looking at these things, we are assuming that we ought to be looking at them from the worst possible standpoint. That is probably true. So maybe what we ought to have is the IRS auditors checking the capability on all of these licenses. The reason Commerce gets the main say in this situation is that we are talking about commerce. We are talking about the economy and what we export. The Department of Defense and the Department of State handle the arms export. That is the really dangerous stuff. There is some stuff that can be dangerous. There is always a secondary use for anything. You can pick up a brick and you can hit somebody over the head. That makes it a weapon. But it is primarily a brick. The factory that designed that brick probably used a computer to design the factory, but that doesn't make them an arms designer. That makes them a computer designing brick factory. One of the reasons that Commerce has the main control is that it is commerce, and it is kind of the old story: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you give it to Defense, then it all looks like weapons. Commerce gets to have a say in this, but with this bill we give greater authority to Defense, State, and the intelligence community. We are not just talking about computers in this legislation. We are talking about a lot of small companies in this country that could compete more effectively if they could get contracts more readily. During that process of getting the 99.4 percent licensure, people lose contracts or they are not asked to participate in a bigger contract at all. From Wyoming, I have some of those folks. There is an outfit called Hi Q technology. They make tachometers. I love this little success story. This guy used to have the parts manufactured in Taiwan and the parts assembled in Taiwan. He said: Wait a minute. Wyoming has some great folks who could put these things together. I bet they could put them together more carefully, make a better machine that would have less errors than the Taiwanese. So he started to have the parts shipped back to the United States and made in Powell, WY. He now makes the best tachometers in the world and ships them around the world in competition with Taiwan. Do you know what he is going to do next? He is going to start having the parts manufactured in Powell, WY, too, because he can do that better with American labor. He can compete on the world market. Now he can't, if every tachometer has to go through this licensing process. You can buy tachometers all over the world. You can't buy as good a quality tachometer as he has, but you can buy them anywhere in the world. They would like to have his, and he would like to sell them. If this licensing process stops him, he can't do that. We have a another fellow in Cody, WY, who invented a chest seal. If you get your chest punctured, if you get shot, fall on rebar or something like that, your lung will collapse unless somebody puts, in the old method, a credit card over it, which allows you, when you inhale, to inflate your lungs. Then they take it off when you exhale and it allows the blood and other stuff to come out. A Navy SEAL who now lives in Cody, WY, thought he could improve on that system. He came up with a chest seal that is a Band-Aid about that big. You wipe off the chest and you apply the Band-Aid. The secret is right in the middle of it there is a thing that looks like the end of a balloon. When you breathe in, it pinches shut. When you breathe out, everything comes out. That is in military kits around the world now. It has saved a lot of lives on farms, ranches, and a lot of other places. Sun screens and planes: There is a guy in Wyoming who figured out if these things work in cars, maybe they would work in planes. And he started putting them in planes, specialized for the windows and stuff. During Desert Storm, one of our big problems was a recognition that instruments in Saudi Arabia in the planes were being damaged by the intense heat. Somebody said: Wait a minute, I know this guy in Wyoming. He makes this simple stuff that goes inside planes and keeps all of the instruments from deteriorating. And it saves about $16,000 a year per airplane. It is used militarily, but it is not a military piece of equipment. It can be duplicated other places in the world. He kind of has the corner on the market, like Kleenex, because he thought of it and he does it better. If he is prohibited from selling this, except to the military of the United States, he can't be in business or he would have to sell it for a lot more. Another guy, in Sheridan, WY, a guy who has the Big Horn Valve Company, found a new way to do valves so that you don't have to have a T that will leak. It is always internal. The valve twists half a turn and shuts off. Any area in between gives some capability. How is it used? NASA uses part of this now. It is a disconnect on a missile. They can keep the fuel going into the missile the last possible moment. When that missile takes off, the valve separates and closes. Refineries use it because it doesn't leak like the old-fashioned valves. Again, if he has to go through this licensing process, he can lose his international opportunity. The times are changing, and I have to say, it is the young people who are changing it. Eight years ago my son was at South Dakota School of Mines. He played a little basketball there. And after the basketball game, I went back to his dorm to pick something up. By the time we had driven halfway across South Dakota to get back to his dorm, it was about 3 in the morning. We went into the dorm; the lights were on everywhere. There were kids, young engineers, taking computers apart. They were borrowing pieces of computers from each other, and they were making supercomputers. That was 8 years ago. I have no idea what they are up to now, but I did read that these computers' best activity is math. The first thing they will do, because it is the best activity, is solve math problems. One of the new Internet problems this last week was people feeding math problems into the system and all of the computers concentrated on that. And the messages would not go through. It is technology. We have to keep the technology going. I apologize for running over here in my excitement of being able to share a few Wyoming examples with everybody. I did that. I did want to emphasize why it is important that we streamline the licensing process, not to the point where it hurts our national security but where we can include some things that will enhance the national security by allowing some concentration. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Yes.