Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. It doesn't say any particular state.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I need to answer some of the items that have been raised. I appreciate the Senator correcting the date on which the present extension of the EAA runs out. I know that confusion came from me. I am involved in another bill with a sunset at a later date, and I mentioned the wrong date. August 20 is the drop-dead date on the Export Administration Act. Can we extend it again? It was extended last time under a unanimous consent agreement in both Houses. That won't necessarily happen again. Unanimous consent is not the easiest thing to get. We were running out of time under appropriations last time and believed that was an appropriate action to take. However, it is not necessarily the same action that will be taken again. We are running out of time to solve the export administration problem. Education will be coming to the floor. I am on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We did the education bill. It actually went through committee faster than any other ESEA bill of which I am aware. Normally it takes a couple of weeks for debate. It went through the committee in 2 days. Normally the bills come out of that committee along party lines. It came out unanimously. There are still details on which to work. I think we will have an Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorized shortly. I would not want to stand in its way. However, it is not ready or we would be debating that now. There are still details being worked out. That leaves a window. It was mentioned that taxes need to be debated. I am one of the proponents of the tax cut and have been working steadily to get that and would not stand in the way of a tax cut. However, the tax cut isn't ready for floor debate. It will be. Education will be ready. Taxes will be ready. And then something else extremely important to this country--appropriations will come out. We have to pass 13 appropriations bills. That is supposed to be over by October 1, but that usually takes us well into October, sometimes into November. That is past October 20, without an opportunity to do this extensive debate that is purported to be needed. One of the things we have done is killed 4 hours--not really ``killed'' because everybody needed to make their statement and get their stance out on the Export Administration Act. I am glad we have done that. From this point forward, the time we are taking is time we could actually be debating these amendments. I have had some Members on the other side say, we know what will happen to those amendments. That is how education works around here. If you don't have the majority of the vote, you lose on your amendment. There is a point to which people see amendments as being reasonable and helping national security, but there is a point where they see it as stopping all trade. There is a balance. We still intend to be a country that has a good economy--not just a country that is militarily capable of being the best in the world. This bill has been a deliberate and timely attempt to reach that kind of situation. What we need is the amendment suggestions through the debate process. I submitted the list earlier. It is in the Record. You can look at all the meetings we have had--probably not all of them, but the ones we recorded as having. Those produced the suggestions in this bill. Now a perfect bill will prevent any law from being in place. There isn't such a thing as a perfect bill. When I was legislating on the State level, as well as here, I had a pretty good idea when I was holding hearings on a bill that there was somebody in the audience who knew a loophole to that bill and they were not about to share it until they had taken advantage of it. However, we hope to catch as many of those as possible when it is being considered. That is why we have 100 people, we have 100 different opinions--at least 100 different opinions from 100 different perspectives contributing to a bill. When we debate whether we go ahead and debate, we are not making any progress toward a final solution. On the China issue, there probably isn't a time that could be more sensitive. But the ones who are talking about greater security than what this bill provides would have it to their advantage to talk about it because of the timing of the situation with China. We don't have any problem debating it. We don't have any problem considering amendments to this bill, even in light of the China situation. The reason we don't is that we are sure we have addressed those issues. If we missed something, we need to know about it and take action. Everybody keeps saying there are a very small number of items that need to be regulated. How do we go about doing that? Give me a suggestion if you have one other than the way we are doing it. There was a comment that there is a new regime, that we are talking about things readily available in either foreign or mass markets; that these other countries have access to all of those things and we will give up all of our control. Not true. We have tried to address keeping control in every possible way. There still will be a control list. We didn't get rid of the control list. The wording in the bill says any item that is controlled now will continue to be controlled until the committee makes a decision otherwise. So if it is controlled now--and a bunch of the items mentioned were controlled and were against the law, but they were done anyway. How did somebody get away with that? I imagine things will still be done illegally no matter what kind of bill we pass because we don't handle ethics and morals; we just handle the law. One of the problems we have under the law is, for about a 6-year period we did not have sufficient findings to get anybody's attention of the fines and penalties and prevention, more so than beating somebody up after it happens--although that has to be there for the bad actors. We have a number in this bill that will get people's attention. For those people who are talking about this bill not having enough security, the last version, the one we could have done at the end of last year, had penalties that were twice as big, but we were asked to reduce those to get them more reasonable, to make it closer to what the munitions list has. If anything ought to have fines and penalties to get the attention of people, it ought to be the munitions list. We would not agree to go to that low a level. In fact, there is even jail time involved in this one. I think some of the those things are needed to keep people's attention. So we have tightened up the bill. We talked a little bit about Iraq. We have to trust that the administration will rate Iraq as one of those countries that should get a very poor rating under the tier system--the worst. I suspect they will. I will not dictate which ones ought to be the bad guys and which ones ought to be the good guys. I have been contacted by a number of countries that wanted to be specifically mentioned in the bill as one of the good guys. I said: No, the administration makes that decision based on your relationship with the United States and your involvement in making and selling weapons of mass destruction. We have some criteria by which you are considered a good country. I have no doubt the administration will adequately do that rating on those countries. That is something brand new, too. We did not have the tier system before. Now we have a tier system so countries that are adverse countries will not get items. We have a control list so that items we do not want people to get they cannot get. So some countries are going to be prohibited both for being on the control list and being a country to which we will not sell that kind of item. I do not know how you could make it tighter than that. Then--and this was at the suggestion of the people who are asking we not be allowed to go ahead and debate this motion--that the President be able to have total control over absolutely any item that can be sold. This is a Presidential enhanced control. Yes, it says the President has to do it. We know the President will get a suggestion from somebody along with all the backup reasoning on why it ought to happen. Some of those decisions will be pretty pro forma. I do not think we are talking about a huge expenditure of time on the President's part. On those items that are really a national security issue, I hope the President is personally and timely involved. But the President can control absolutely everything. How much documentation, how much review does he have to do? That is for a little transparency, so we know what is being controlled. But the President is the ultimate authority on all of it. We have given him that constitutional right. We have now put it in writing. We also have some extra control authority, which are on page 183 of this little document that is on every single desk for the end use and end user controls. And then the most important paragraph, the enhanced controls. So if somebody has a suggestion on how to make it tighter than that and still be able to sell to our allies the things that we want our allies to have that would be beneficial to them and to us, tell me how to do that; present an amendment. Of course, we cannot present an amendment until we get past this debate about how long we are going to debate about whether we get to debate. I have been here before on this bill. I have to say it is a lot easier to defeat a bill than it is to pass a bill--I noticed that through my legislative career, as well as my senatorial career--because if you create a little confusion, confusion goes a long way. We have heard a lot of confusion. I think we can address everything that has been mentioned to this point. We can show where it has been covered in the bill. But it is easier to defeat a bill. I have to say in the Senate it is even easier than that because we have this thing called filibuster and that is where you stop the motion to proceed and have people debate on whether to debate for a long period of time. I understand the other side understands how many people there are who have been working on this bill, been involved in this bill, who will vote for this bill. If we file cloture, we will get cloture. It is just a long process and a way of delaying it. But it is a route that can be taken. We had the signatures for that last year but ran out of time. I only mention this time again to get back to the original point, which is August 20 is when the bill runs out. If we have not solved it by that time, we may not be able to solve it. So I ask that we get past this motion to proceed. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ENZI. I will. I was hoping to finish my statement.

Mr. ENZI. Certainly.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of all the Members who preceded me. It has been a very nervous situation to have to sit through all the statements when I would like to have been contributing all along. Over 2 years of my life I have invested in extensive meetings on this bill. I figured I could wait a little longer. I support the motion to proceed. I unequivocally support the motion to proceed. I am sincerely disappointed that we didn't get the motion to proceed. I would be happy to agree to a time agreement. What we are faced with right now is unlimited debate on whether we get to debate. So I would like to have some kind of a time agreement, if we got passed this motion to proceed--which is unlimited debate on whether to debate--then we have unlimited debate on unlimited amendments. So there is the capability of doing extensive debate on any amendment that anybody wants with no time limits on any of those amendments or debate on the entire bill. So I would be just delighted if we could proceed and look at those amendments. I appreciate the Senator from Tennessee's response about the extensive meetings that we had previously. I am sure he has noticed that in this bill there are extensive changes that resulted from those meetings. The most particular one is the Presidential set-aside, the Presidential set-aside that allows the President ultimate authority over every bit of national security, which is what the President should have. We did allow that in every instance. We think it is constitutional. We did not think it had to be in the bill, but it is in the bill now. We think that change alone makes the biggest difference in national security in the history of the United States, but particularly in the history of export administration. We have some things in this bill that are absolutely crucial. We have some things that need to be done for national security. I am not talking about a balance. I am talking about basic national security, where everybody who looks at national security says we need this Export Administration Act. We do not need a temporary extension of it. We definitely do not need to be operating under the President's Executive order, the IEEPA process, in order to have some control over our national security. That is what has led to the national security problems we have had since the act expired in 1994. These problems we are talking about in relation to China--and I am glad we are having that discussion--you will recall we said, bring this bill up any time; we do not care what kind of international crisis there has been with China; it is a good time to discuss national security, no matter what the timing with China. We did not expect it to be quite this timely, but we are willing to work with that because we want to make sure this country's secrets are not taken. Most of what has been referred to happened after the act expired in 1994. When it expired in 1994, we were faced with an Executive Order and the President using some of his emergency powers. What is the big difference with that? Penalties are the big difference with that. Penalties dropped down to $10,000 a violation. On the multimillion- dollar contracts we are talking about around the world, $10,000 is less than a contingency. It is less than the cost of an ad in many cases. Mr. President, $10,000 is not a penalty. It is not a deterrent. Penalties are an important part of this act. The penalties expired in 1994. We have them under a short extension of that old bill that lacks a lot of the security we need, purely by an agreement that we would extend it until August 20 of this year. That means on August 20 of this year we are back to the same old bind where companies can violate national security for less than the cost of an ad. It should never happen in our country. When I became chairman of the International Trade and Finance Subcommittee, with Senator Johnson as the ranking member, and found out that the main piece of business we had to face was this Export Administration Act, we started digging into it. We have kind of lived together for a couple years, going to meetings, meeting with anybody we possibly could who had an interest in it, trying to find out how the process worked, looking at what had happened to it before. There were 12 previous attempts to get this passed. How could something that is this important to the country not make it through on 12 successive attempts? Well, I am getting a better and better idea every day. Part of the reason is that we are so security minded we would lock up all exports in exchange for security. But that will not provide security. So we need a system that will work. Bringing everybody together on a mechanism that will work has been an interesting and difficult process. I do thank my colleagues on the Banking Committee for their support and their recognition that this legislation is needed to strengthen our export control system. I do appreciate the support of the administration. President Bush and his team immediately realized that the reauthorization of EAA was vital to the national security and the economic interests of this country. With the few changes that were made by the Banking Committee during markup, the bill received the written endorsement of President Bush's national security team. That includes the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Adviser. Those are people who are in place. I know they have had advice from people who have been working on this issue for years. On March 28, 2001, not very long ago, President Bush called the committee's action good news and urged the Senate to pass it quickly. You have heard the longer versions of that earlier in this Chamber.

Mr. ENZI. I am certain that the Bush administration has felt the importance of getting the EAA reauthorized. They have been looking at the documents that have been mentioned on the need for this for several years. I was very pleased during the campaign that President Bush addressed, as part of his campaign, this Export Administration Act. He had looked at a number of the principles. In fact, on his Web site he has listed what he thought ought to be included in the Export Administration Act. It gave me a lot of confidence that he had looked at the Export Administration Act that you and I worked on because it went point by point on it. I was pleased with the diligence with which the administration and their staff spoke to me and my staff. We were able to go through a lot of the points and a lot of the questions and a lot of the past discussions and a lot of the past meetings we had had with other Members to be sure to cover as completely as possible those items of national security.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, under the present appeals system, for someone to appeal a decision on licensing at the committee level, they have to talk to their boss and educate their boss enough about that particular license so their boss can file the appeal. There has to be a lot of tension, particularly in the military, of someone having to disturb somebody further up the line over a decision. Uniformly people agreed there was some difficulty with that. We have provided for an appeal in the first round by the person sitting on that committee. He prepares the documents now. As it gets up to the decision level, then the decision has to be made by people who are in office. Did China get our secrets? Yes, China got our secrets. Does this bill stop that? This bill stops it to the best ability I know, and it is certainly better than doing it under an Executive order, an emergency provision by the President. This bill is needed. We should be debating it. We should be proceeding with whatever amendments are needed. The country desperately needs this bill. Again, I thank Senator Gramm, Senator Sarbanes, and particularly my ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Johnson, for all of the hours they have spent on this legislation. We are still willing to spend hours. We want to have a debate. We want to proceed. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Summary of EAA Discussions, 1999-2000 Jan. 20, 1999, 10 a.m.--Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance--Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Export Administration Act. Jan. 28, 1999, 3:30 p.m.--Enzi staff meets with Thompson staff to discuss issues regarding reauthorization of EAA. Feb. 8, 1999, 10 a.m.--Enzi staff meet with Gary Milhollin, Wisconsin Nuclear Arms Control Project. Feb. 8, 1999, 2 p.m.--Enzi staff meet with NSA staff. Feb. 9, 1999, 10 a.m.--Enzi staff meet with Senate Intelligence Committee staff member (Joan). Mar. 16, 1999, 9:30 a.m.--Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance--Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Export Administration Act and Managing Security Risks for High Tech Exports. Mar. 18, 1999, 3 p.m.--Enzi staff meet with WMD Commission staff. April 14, 1999, 10 a.m.--Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance--Hearing on the Export Control Process. April 28, 1999, 1 p.m.--Enzi staff meet with Kyl staff. June 7, 1999, 9 a.m.--Banking staff meet with Cox Commission investigator. June 10, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee Hearing on Export Control Issues in the Cox Report. June 17, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee Hearing on Emerging Technology Issues and Reauthorization of the Export Administration Act. June 22, 1999, 10:30 a.m.--Enzi meets with John Barker, State Department. June 23, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee Hearing on Reauthorization of the Export Administration Act: Government Agency Views. June 24, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee Hearing on Reauthorization of the Export Administration Act: Private Sector Views. June 28, 1999, 4 p.m.--Enzi staff meet with Mack staff. July 29, 1999, 9:30 a.m.--Enzi staff meet with Kyl staff. June--July/Sept. 1999--Numerous meetings with Administration (BXA, State, Defense, intelligence), industry, Senators and staff to discuss draft EAA. Sept. 16, 1999, 9 a.m.--Banking Committee staff meet with AIPAC staff. Sept. 23, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee Votes 20-0 to Approve Export Administration Act of 1999. Sept. 27, 1999, 11 a.m.--Banking Committee meets with DoD staff to discuss S. 1712 issues. Oct. 6, 1999, 10 a.m.--Banking Committee meets with AIPAC staff. Oct. 10, 1999, 10 a.m.--Enzi meets with Cochran. Cochran says he will not hold up consideration of the bill. Oct. 20, 1999, 11:30 a.m.--Enzi meets with Kyl. Kyl says we did not listen to his staff at all when putting bill together. Oct. 25, 1999, 4:15 p.m.--Warner meets with Gramm/Enzi. Warner staff (SASC Joan) says she has not seen the reported bill. Warner commits that his staff will review the bill and get back to us. Oct. 28, 1999, 4 p.m.--Gramm/Enzi meet with Lott to discuss consideration of bill. Lott says window is narrow. Will consider if it will only take one or two days. Nov. 1, 1999, 6 p.m.--Banking Committee staff meet with SFRC staff (Marshall Billingslea). He provides us with extensive list of concerns, mostly jurisdictional in nature. Nov. 4, 1999, 3 p.m.--Banking Committee staff meet with SASC staff. SASC says they don't know how the bill will impact military since military now incorporates more off the shelf commercial items. Nov. 5, 1999, 1:30 p.m.--Banking Committee staff meet with SASC staff, Hamre, NSA. Dec. 14, 1999, 11 a.m.--Banking Committee staff meet with Thompson staff (Curt Silvers introduces Chris Ford, new staff). Fri., Jan. 21, 12:30 a.m.--Banking Committee staff to meet with Marshall Billingslea. Wed., Feb. 2, 10 a.m.--Banking staff meets with SASC staff. Wed., Feb. 9--Senators Warner, Helms, Shelby, and Thompson send a letter to Senator Lott expressing concerns with S. 1712 and requesting referral to the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Governmental Affairs, and Intelligence. Wed., Feb. 9, 3 p.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with Senator Lott in the Leader's office. Thu., Feb. 10, 5 p.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with business community in Senator Gramm's office. Fri., Feb. 11, 10 a.m.--Lott staff holds meeting with Gramm, Enzi, Warner, Helms, Shelby, and Thompson staff in Appropriations Committee room [3 hours]. Tue., Feb. 15, 11 a.m.--Lott staff schedules staff meeting/ canceled by Lott staff. Wed., Feb. 16, 12 p.m.--Lott staff holds second meeting with Gramm, Enzi, Warner, Helms, Shelby, Thompson and Kyl staff in Leader's office [2.5 hours]. Thu., Feb. 17, 3 p.m.--Banking staff hold informational briefing re S. 1712 for all Senate staff in Banking hearing room. Fri., Feb. 18, 1 p.m.--Lott staff hosts third meeting with Gramm, Enzi, Warner, Helms, Shelby, Thompson, and Kyl staff in Leader's office; Gramm/Enzi staff provide document outlining provisions that may be accepted. [45 min]. Tue., Feb. 22 9:30 a.m.--Senator Lott meets with Senators Gramm, Enzi, Warner, Kyl, Shelby, and Thompson in Leader's office; Senators Gramm and Enzi identify three key issues in contention; agree to provide Managers' Amdt. Wed., Feb. 23--Gramm and Enzi staff provide Managers' Amendment CRA00.098 to other senators' staff. Fri., Feb. 25--Gramm and Enzi staff provide pullout CRA00.120 regarding three issues to other senators' staff. Fri., Feb. 25--Senator Thompson sends a letter to Senators Gramm and Enzi, cc'd to Senator Lott and the other senators, expressing ``grave concerns'' about S. 1712. Mon., Feb. 28, 4 p.m.--Senator Warner holds SASC hearing on EAA; Senators Enzi and Johnson among witnesses. Mon., Feb. 28, 6 p.m.--Warner staff host impromptu meeting with DOD and DOC officials and Enzi and Johnson staff in SASC hearing room; walk through differences [4 hours]. Tue., Feb. 29, 10 a.m.--Warner staff host meeting with DOD and DOC officials and Gramm, Enzi, Sarbanes, Johnson, Levin staff in SASC hearing room [2.5 hours]. Tue., Feb. 29--Senators Warner, Helms, Shelby, Kyl, Thompson, Roberts, Inhofe, and B. Smith send a letter to Senator Lott to express ``continuing concerns'' with S. 1712, stating that ``even with its proposed managers' amendment'' the bill fails to address concerns, and objecting to its consideration. Tue., Feb. 29--Senators Abraham and Bennett send a letter to Senators Lott and Daschle urging that they make Senate consideration of S. 1712 a priority. Wed., Mar. 1, 2 p.m.--Gramm, Enzi, Sarbanes, Johnson staff meet with business community in Banking hearing room. Fri., Mar. 3, 2 p.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with Senators Warner, Helms, Kyl, and Thompson in Senator Gramm's office; walk through their concerns [3.5 hours]. Mon., Mar. 6, 11 a.m.--Senator Gramm meets with Senator Kyl in Senator Gramm's office to discuss concerns [1 hour]. Mon., Mar. 6, 1 p.m.--Senators Gramm, Enzi, Johnson, with Sarbanes staff, meet in Senator Gramm's office to discuss concerns raised [1 hour]. Mon., Mar. 6, 3:30 p.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with Senators Warner, Helms, Shelby, Kyl, and Thompson in Senator Gramm's office; finish walking through their concerns [2 hours]. Tue., Mar. 7, 8 a.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with business community in Banking hearing room to discuss ongoing member negotiations. Tue., Mar. 7, 4:30 p.m.--Gram and Enzi staff meet with Warner, Helms, Kyl, Thompson, and Shelby staff; walk through 4-page Managers' Amendment document [1.5 hours]. Tue., Mar. 7, 5:45 p.m.--Senator Lott brings up EAA by unanimous consent (Senator Thompson raises concerns on floor but does not object). Wed., Mar. 8, 11 a.m.--Senators Gramm and Enzi meet with Senators Warner, Helms, Shelby, Kyl, and Thompson at those senators' request. Members agree to suspend floor consideration of EAA until details agreed; Gramm/Enzi provide revised 4-page Managers' Amendment document and ask for comments by the end of the day [1 hour]. Wed., Mar. 8, 12:30 p.m.--Senator Gramm takes EAA off floor via special UC agreement among Senators Lott, Daschle, Thompson, Reid, and others. Wed., Mar. 8, 4 p.m.--Gramm and Enzi staff provide other senators' staff with revised Managers' Amendment CRA00.262. Thu., Mar. 9, 3 p.m.--Senator Warner gives Senators Gramm and Enzi misdated letter with attachment of proposed amendments to Managers' Amdt. Thu., Mar. 9--Senators Warner, Helms, Shelby, Kyl, and Thompson send another letter to Senator Lott expressing ``continuing concerns'' with S. 1712 and objecting to moving to its consideration. Fri., Mar. 10, 12 p.m.--Senator Gramm meets with Senator Warner (other senators represented by staff); gives him Gramm/Enzi final response document; asks for final decision from senators. Week of Mar. 13-17--Gramm/Enzi staff wait for response re 3/10 document. Thu., Mar. 16--Senator Gramm schedules members' meeting for 10 a.m. Fri. 17th to get response to 3/10 document; postpones to following week after being told that Kyl/Helms/Shelby not in town and Warner and his staff both ``unable to attend.'' Mon., Mar. 20--Senator Gramm schedules members' meeting for 2 p.m. Tues. 21st to get response to 3/10 document; postpones to later same week after being told that Shelby not back til Tues. night and that the senators first need to meet to confer. Week of Mar. 20-23--Gramm/Enzi staff continue to wait for response re 3/10 document. Tue., Mar. 21--Senator Warner announces sudden SASC hearing for Thurs. 23d; cites ``considerable differences'' remaining between Banking and other senators. Wed., Mar. 22, 1 p.m.--House International Relations Subcommittee on Economic Policy reluctantly removes Senators Gramm and Enzi from their witness list, and instead holds hearing solely with industry witnesses; hints at marking up narrow EAA bills. Wed., Mar. 22--[Other senators apparently hold meeting to confer]. Thu., Mar. 23, 10 a.m.--Senator Warner holds second SASC hearing, at which he presses GAO witness to say S. 1712 ``must'' be strengthened, and states that ``the four chairmen have not received some legislative language which we feel is essential to making our decisions on this.'' Thu., Mar. 23--Senator Reid gives floor statement urging Senate passage of S. 1712, noting that its sponsors ``tried to move a bill . . . but frankly, the majority is unable to join with us to allow us to move this bill forward.'' Fri., Mar. 24--Two weeks from the date on which they gave the other seniors their final offer, Senators Gramm and Enzi receive a letter dated March 23 from Senators Warner, Helms, Shelby, Kyl, and Thompson. The letter stated: ``As you know, on March 6 [sic], 2000, we provided you with a package describing the issues that we consider critical to reaching an agreement on the proposed reauthorization of S. 1712 [sic], the Export Administration Act. We were disappointed that you were only able to agree to at most four of the eighteen issues we identified, and were unable to agree to some issues on which we believed we had previously reached agreement in principle. Accordingly, we cannot agree at this time to return the bill to the Senate floor under the terms of the unanimous consent agreement filed on March 8. ``There are important issues remaining to be resolved, and we feel that negotiations should continue in order to for there being hope for achieving an Export Administration Act that successfully balances the needs of industry and national security.'' Week of Mar. 27-31--Gramm/Enzi staff do not hear from other senators' staff. Week of Apr. 3--Gramm/Enzi staff do not hear from other senators' staff. Tues., Apr. 4--Senator McCain holds hearing on S. 1712, at which he expresses concern that the bill does not adequately protect national security. Senators Thompson and Enzi testify. Tues., April 11--Gramm staff call the staff of other senators to alert them that Senator Lott planned to make a pro forma effort to bring up S. 1712 by UC on Wed., at which point Senator Gramm would object pursuant to the gentleman's agreement made with the other senators on Mar. 8; and that Senators Lott and Gramm then would file a cloture on a motion to proceed to S. 1712. Wed., Apr. 12--At Senator Lott's request, Senators Gramm and Enzi give Senator Lott two cloture petitions (one on a motion to proceed to S. 1712, and one on S. 1712); both were signed by 16 Republicans representing a broad diversity of states and of Senate Committees (including SASC, SFRC, SGAC, and SCST). Wed., Apr. 12--Senator Thompson holds SGAC hearing on multilateral export controls. Apr., May--Gramm/Enzi staff do not hear from other senators' staff. Thurs., May 25--Senators Thompson and Torricelli hold a press conference on S. 2645. According to press reports, Senator Thompson said that in his opinion, legislation to reauthorize the Export Administration Act is probably dead as a stand-alone measure in 2000; when asked whether he was partly responsible, he replied, ``Let's just say that truth and justice were served'' Fri., May 26--Senator Thompson holds SGAC hearing on mass market/foreign availability; no Administration witnesses are invited

Mr. ENZI. August 20.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, is the Senator aware that we are not doing away with the control list and any item on the list continues to stay on the list unless it goes through the process? Is the Senator aware that we have added country tiering so that rogue states are taken care of that way?

Mr. ENZI. It could be.

Mr. ENZI. I am glad the Senator raised that point because we have export security that is being executed at the moment. We do not need this bill for export security to begin. It is happening right now. The people who are in place right now are in charge of our national security under export administration. They are having to deal with inadequate legislation to be able to do what needs to be done. So while the staff isn't there, they are still having to comply with licensing. I do not know how they are doing it except that there are still many civil service employees who have been around, and will be around, and are dealing with these problems. But the problem goes on right now. It does not matter whether this bill is in place or whether we are operating on the extension of the old one. There are some definite improvements in this Export Administration Act that absolutely need to be in place to provide for our national security. I hope that, first of all, we do not have to continue to operate under that old Export Act, regardless of who is in place, and, secondly, that that old Export Act does not expire on August 20 without a backup bill that does something extensive such as this bill does. I congratulate the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Gramm. He has probably been more involved at a member level on this bill than perhaps any bill Banking has done. He has involved all of us in that process; at least whenever Senator Johnson and I have asked him to be at a meeting, he has been at the meeting. He has been willing to participate, learn the bill in tremendous detail, and work on it that way. The same is true with Senator Sarbanes. There has never been a time Senator Johnson or I have invited him that he did not show up to help out in the process. He has been involved with this particular bill for about 20 years and understands it to a higher level than most of the people we have run into who have been involved. His comments have been extremely valuable, and a couple of times he has even reined in my enthusiasm a little bit, making very good points that needed to be incorporated. He has been one of the Senators who contributed very much by listening to the other side in the debates to make sure we got these processes included. I have already mentioned Senator Johnson and his help on the subcommittee. I don't know how many panels we served on, answering questions about how this works and how it could work better. That has always been our approach to the bill: How can we make it better? How can we improve it so that it works? This legislation is unfinished business left from the 106th Congress. The activity Senator Johnson and I engaged in didn't happen this year. As soon as we got chairmanships, we started working on the bill. That was our prime emphasis for the 2 years of the last session. It took all of that time. It took all of that time to go through the process of understanding exactly how the bill works, reviewing previous failures, visiting the Department of Commerce. Of course, the Cox report we have referred to several times came out during this process. One of the actions I took was to go over to the Intelligence Committee and read the Cox report when it was still a secret document. I am always amazed that just by being elected a Senator, one gets a top security clearance. I understand why that is and I am glad that it happens. I understand we have had a pretty good review of our background by the time we get elected, whether we want it or not. I went over and received a briefing and read the document. I wanted to be sure the ideas we were generating for solving the problem followed the direction of the people who were really concentrated on the Export Administration Act and the security of the country, particularly as it related to China. I was convinced and am convinced that we did what can be done legislatively. There are a lot of other processes that need to go on, particularly in the executive branch, to deal with this, but that is not legislation. We deal with the legislative part. We also lived with people from the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and State for a long time. I have to thank Dr. Hamre and Secretary Reinsch for their dedicated devotion to coming up with a solution. Both of them had worked intensively on this issue from their own positions in Defense and Commerce. Without their interaction and daily meetings and telephone calls, we would not have been able to get to the reasonable position that we have. I was able to get some people on my staff for a very short time who had dealt with license applications. We wanted to know what the person putting in the license had to go through. Then following that, because of the concern over enforcement and particularly the postshipment verification, I brought somebody into my office who was an enforcement officer, somebody who had actually done some of these things on site, somebody who knew how to calculate old penalties under IEEPA versus the penalties under EAA as we propose it. It was fascinating, absolutely crucial to what we are doing. Of course, this was reviewed and endorsed by the Clinton administration. Now the Bush administration has taken a look at it, and it has been endorsed by them. We have many people from both sides of the aisle who have been looking at this, working on it, and hoping that at some point, after extensive debate and amendment, it would come to a vote. What we are debating today is whether or not we ought to proceed. We could save a lot of time if we proceeded to offering amendments. All of those amendments won't be debated on the floor. If there are some that deal with a top secret security, those will be dealt with as we do with that kind of an amendment. If some of the discussion or parts of the discussion cannot be in the Chamber, it will be held in one of the rooms designed for that kind of discussion. We have done that before. In fact, two of the hearings we held were done under those circumstances so that the people in the intelligence community who needed to communicate some of the problems they saw could get those problems directly to us. We invited every Member of the Senate, but we haven't had every Member of the Senate listen to it. Those of us who have attended, who have worked on this bill, think we have incorporated the solutions that were brought out in the hearings into this bill. What happened on it last time? We ran out of time. It is pretty easy to run out of time on a bill, I am finding. This one is in trouble of running out of time. I am hoping, because we were able to bring up this version at this point in time, that that will not be the case. We need this bill. I emphasize, the reauthorization provides authority to control exports for commercial or dual-use items. I need to mention that because we are not talking about munitions here. That is a separate process. That needs to be reviewed, too. In fact, one of the suggestions we had was that the fines in this bill should not get out ahead of the fines in the munitions bill. This is way out ahead of the fines in the munitions bill. It was our suggestion that maybe if we cut the fines back a little bit, that the munitions bill could be brought up to this so that there were sufficient fines in that bill. At any rate, we don't want the two confused. I don't want to talk about that very much because that has been one of the difficulties with this. It gets confused with munitions and satellites. These are the dual-use items. These are items that, yes, there could possibly be a military application for them. If there is a military application that would be detrimental to the security of this country, we have put in the provision that the President of the United States can set aside any other permission, any other possibility of licensing, and protect that item. We have included that national security aspect. It does establish the modern effective framework recognizing items available in foreign or mass markets that are not effectively controlled. It puts stronger controls over a few items, which should equal more effective controls. We are talking about building a higher fence around fewer items. I will talk about that, too. I did have the fortunate opportunity to cochair and work with Congressman Cox on the study group to enhance multilateral export controls for U.S. national security. Together we released the study group's final report on Tuesday, April 24. That was this week. There is a need beyond the export and included in the Export Administration Act to enhance multilateral controls. What we do as a country by ourselves, if it is being done everywhere else, isn't going to cut it. We need to have everybody who has that item working with us to make sure it doesn't get in the wrong hands. That is what the report we released on Tuesday dealt with. Mr. Cox referenced the fact that we need a commonsense export control policy. He said that we should not make the mistake of confusing a more burdensome system with the more effective system. He went on to mention that the current export control system has ``an instinct for the capillary rather than the jugular.'' In other words, the current system often has the tendency to put the same focus and expend the same amount of energy on the more trivial items, as opposed to concentrating on the truly dangerous items. That is what we are trying to do. That is what we talk about in building higher fences around fewer things, but being able to control them. If we try to control absolutely everything and expend an equal amount of effort on each item that the United States produces, we don't stand a chance of keeping up. So this bill focuses and gets some concentration and handles the problem. I do happen to agree with Mr. Cox that S. 149 is structured in a way that will focus on the jugular, not the capillary. As everybody is aware, Mr. Cox chaired the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China. I mentioned that before. It investigated several export-control-related problems concerning China and offered recommendations to improve our export control systems. He noted during his testimony before the Banking Committee last year that: We ought not to have export controls to pretend to make ourselves safe as a country. We ought to have export controls that work. That is what S. 149 aims to do. It will make export controls work. It will make export controls effective. The bill would establish a strong, but flexible, export control framework that can adapt to our national security needs in today's globalized and uncertain world. Recent events tell us that as situations change, the administration should be provided with the flexibility it needs to adapt to that change. S. 149 does not lock the U.S. into a policy position toward any particular country or any particular item. It sets the framework that the administration would carry out. The Congress would then have the appropriate oversight responsibilities. The bill provides the President with authority to control items beyond current law. Section 201(d) of the bill--and I have mentioned this before--grants the President special control authorities for cases involving national security and international terrorism, as well as international commitments made by the United States. Section 201(c) allows controls to be imposed based on the end use or end user of an item if it could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I remind my colleagues that these two provisions could be used regardless of foreign availability or mass market status of the item. Other national security items are also included in the bill. For example, it requires that whenever items are to be taken off the list, the Secretary of Defense concur with the decision. In addition, country tiering would be made by the President. He would be the one to determine where a country is assigned to a tier for each controlled item or group of items. The President is to take into consideration several risk factors, including the present and potential relationship of the country to the U.S. and the country's weapons of mass destruction capabilities and compliance with multilateral export control regimes. In other words, if they are cooperating with us and our allies, they will be rated better. If they are a rogue state, they will be rated terrible, and that can vary as we find out things about a country. There is no country referred to by name in this bill, and that is so that the President and the Congress have the total flexibility in dealing with any country as they become friends or as they become enemies. Additionally, it will establish tough new criminal and civil penalties for export control violations much greater than are in the current law. Those penalties were outdated and needed to be enhanced, and they have been enhanced dramatically. These penalties will deter potential violators, rather than be computed as part of doing business. The bill establishes a program to increase compliance with the freight-forwarding firms--the people shipping the items. This will in turn allow enforcement to detect and interdict possible illegal shipments. That is an improvement over the old system. It increases the overseas presence of enforcement agents who conduct prelicense and postshipment checks. A very important part of the bill is its emphasis on multilateral export controls--the report that we put out this last Tuesday. Many dramatic changes have occurred over the past decade that present additional challenges to the effective control of sensitive technology. The U.S. now is rarely the only producer of militarily useful high-tech product. The effects of globalization, such as increased flows of trade, foreign investment, and international communications have contributed to the more widespread production and availability of high- tech products. The threats are now different and more diffuse. Therefore, the bill urges the administration to strengthen the existing multilateral export control regimes. Multilateral export controls are the most effective controls. The U.S. has to exercise its leadership in this area now more than ever, and the bill provides a mechanism for encouraging and, in fact, forcing that. Our position of world leadership in stemming the transfer of weapons of mass destruction is compromised by our failure to enact a more permanent national vehicle to authorize our export control program. Passage of S. 149 will reaffirm U.S. leadership in the area of export controls. U.S. leadership in this area has been lacking in large part because of Congress' failure to reform and reauthorize EAA. If we don't have good controls in place, it is very difficult for us to talk to our allies and ask them to join us in these multilateral processes. I look forward to the President signing this bill. It is essential that the EAA be reauthorized and reformed this year before August 20. Passage of S. 149 will advance both our national security and our economic objectives. Is this the final answer? No. There is always going to be more work that is needed to be done on national security. Times change. We have had a drastic change in the times. The Iron Curtain came down. But this bill operates the same way. We always have to be working on it, but we have to have something in place now. We ought to be proceeding to the debate on this bill. We should be talking about those amendments that were referred to earlier and debating them now. We should be proceeding on the debate. If we can proceed on the debate, we can reach a logical conclusion that will solve the security problems of the United States, or at least begin the process. I could answer some of the other things, and I should answer some of the other things that were mentioned. Computers is one of the items that was brought up, and it was mentioned that we are taking out a provision that has been present for a decade. Well, the way the computers operate now, as everybody in the country knows, has changed dramatically. They are not the same mechanism they once were. They are being linked in unusual ways to provide capabilities using older machines or less capable machines than some of the brand new machines. Another discovery: I sat by a guy on the airplane and he was talking to me about supercomputers. I had to check out what he said. He said the U.S. was no longer producing any supercomputers; that Japan is the only country producing them. Do you know that he is right? We have some special linkages of computer chips that provide as much or more capability than the supercomputer that Japan makes. But if you are talking about a single computer, Japan makes the supercomputer; we don't. That takes out some of the mechanism for measurement that we used to have. We need to have a knew measurement. That is recognized by the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce and the Department of State and the security agencies. So that is why we have made some provisions to do something with computers. Foreign availability: A lot of what was talked about isn't current law. The change in foreign availability is that we have a Presidential set-aside. We give the President authority to set aside in national security instances. We change the word ``significant'' down to ``detrimental'' so it would be easier. But we are talking about the President of the United States. Who determines whether the President of the United States sets it aside for a significant security reason or a detrimental security reason? Actually, the President of the United States determines that. So whatever he says is detrimental or significant would be detrimental or significant. It is very easy for him to justify any of his actions. We also call for multilateral controls when foreign availability is put in place so it is not just the United States saying what cannot be done, it is all of the countries that produce that product saying it cannot be so. That is the only way to solve that problem. I have to talk a little bit about the appeals process because there is some confusion on that. I suspect a lot of the reason we are not debating this right now, why we are not proceeding to this legislation is that there is some confusion. I have a little trouble with the suggestion that we are moving ahead too fast. We did it last year. We met extensively last year. We brought it up this year. We talked to all of the parties--all of the parties-- who were willing to sit down and talk again this year. We brought it to committee. We debated it in committee. We had amendments from the President's staff. Those were circulated, and the people who were opposing our motion to proceed had meetings with the President. When we passed it out of committee, everybody had to suspect that at the first possible moment we could bring up this bill, particularly in light of the August 20 deadline, that we would bring it up for the security of this Nation. We wanted to bring it up as soon as possible. This is one of those gaps in legislative time that came up. We were asked: Do you want to bring it up now, particularly in light of what has happened with China? We said: We need to bring this up at any time we can, particularly in light of what has happened with China, both now and in the past. We are not afraid of any amendments. There are ways that a bill can always be improved. That is why we have this legislative process in which 100 people participate. It is so everybody can have a say from their perspective. The group as a whole can determine whether that is something that needs to be a part of whatever legislation is being considered at that time. I ask unanimous consent that, following my remarks, the summary of EAA discussions that me and my staff have had with different groups be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on April 21-23, 2001 more than 1,200 students from across the United States met in Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People'', The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to report that the class from Cheyenne Central High School from Cheyenne represented the State of Wyoming in this national event. The fine students in this class include: Joe Bergene; Skye Bougsty-Marshall; Cory Bulkley; Michelle Cassidy; Ryan Day; Sara De Groot; Chris Heald; Nat Linter; Steve Lucero; Geoff Luke; Caroline Morris; Ben Silver; and Annaliese Wiederspahn. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Don Morris, who deserves much of the credit for the class' success. These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles of our constitutional democracy. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to support the ``We the People'' program through my work on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am particularly proud to note that the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act will allow schools, which choose to do so, to use federal funds to incorporate the We the People program into their study of civics and American government. I once again want to congratulate Don Morris and these students from Cheyenne Central High School.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENZI. Would the Senator accept a voice vote?

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this might be one of the most important amendments you will vote on if you are interested in your State banks. This is an issue we have dealt with every year recently. Mr. Carper, the Senator from Delaware, and I have worked on this diligently. Members would be amazed at the cosponsors. We have nine Democrats and nine Republicans on it. We have other Members who have pledged their support. The budget resolution would impose a new federal fee on State banks, but it would be a fee that receives no service. It is a fee we have rejected every year as a new tax. Don't approve a new tax in this budget. Help roll it back one more time and make sure that State banks will not be charged a new fee. I especially thank the junior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, for working with me on this amendment. As a former Governor, he understands the importance of state banks and their contribution to a healthy banking system. I also thank the other cosponsors of this amendment, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Miller, Ms. Collins, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Nelson. The budget resolution before us assumes that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve will impose new fees on state-chartered bank and bank holding companies. The amendment we are offering will ensure that these new fees will not be assessed. The proposal included in the budget would amount to a federal tax on state-chartered entities that have already paid their state chartering agencies for the same service. In effect, these banks would be double- charged, with no added benefit. The dual-banking system, consisting of both state and national bank charters, has served the United States and its communities well for many years. The current fee structure is identical for state and national banks. They both pay their chartering organization for their examinations. They are also both subject to deposit insurance premiums assessed by the FDIC. Additional fees for state banks will not increase safety and soundness. Banks should have an option of a federal or state charter, depending upon their particular needs. The new fees assumed to be a part of the budget resolution would reduce the attractiveness of state bank charters, which traditionally have provided a lower-cost alternative to the federal bank charter. The effect would be to drive up costs for both banks and consumers. Our amendment will help preserve the competitiveness of state-bank charters and maintain the balance of the dual banking system. The amendment would save state banks and bank holding companies approximately $2 billion over 10 years. It would allow these banks to invest this money in their local communities, rather than paying a discriminatory fee. The Congress has rejected new federal fees on state banks in each of the previous seven budgets. The Senate Banking Committee has consistently opposed this proposal. The major banking associations--the American Bankers Association (ABA), the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), America's Community Bankers (ACB), the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) and the Financial Services Roundtable-- have all endorsed the amendment. In addition, the National Governor's Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures are supporting the amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the National Governor's Association and the correspondence from the banking associations be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Powder River Basin Resource Development Act of 2001.'' This legislation will provide a procedure for the orderly and timely resolution of disputes between coal producers and oil and gas operators in the Powder River Basin in north-central Wyoming and southern Montana. This legislation is cosponsored by my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas. The Powder River Basin in Wyoming and southern Montana is one of the richest energy resource regions in the world. This area contains the largest coal reserves in the United States, providing nearly thirty percent of America's total coal production. This region also contains rich reserves of oil and gas, including coalbed methane. Wyoming is the fifth largest producer of natural gas in the county and the sixth largest producer of crude oil. The Powder River Basin plays an ever- increasing role in the development of coalbed methane as Wyoming continues to help meet the growing needs for natural gas in the Rocky Mountain region and the country as a whole. The Powder River Basin and the State of Wyoming as a whole provide many of the resources that heat our homes, fuel our cars, generate electricity for our computers, microwaves, and televisions. In short, there is very little that any one of us does in a day that is not affected by the resources of coal, oil, and natural gas. The production of these natural resources represents a vital part of the economy of my home state of Wyoming. The coal and oil and gas industries employ more than 21,000 people in Wyoming. We in Wyoming educate our students, build our roads, and provide our citizens with many of their social services through property taxes, severance taxes, and mineral royalties collected from the development of these energy resources. Since Wyoming has no state income tax, our State relies very heavily on revenues from the minerals extraction industries for our tax base. Given the great importance both the coal and oil and gas industries have to Wyoming's economy, the State of Wyoming and the federal government have tried to encourage concurrent development in areas where it is feasible and safe to do so. Unfortunately, this is not always possible. This legislation provides a procedure for the fair and expeditious resolution of conflicts between oil and gas producers and coal producers who have conflicting mineral interests on land in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and southern Montana. This legislation establishes a specific procedure to resolve conflicts between coal producers and oil and gas producers when their mineral development rights come into conflict because of overlapping leases. First, this proposal requires that once a potential conflict is identified, the affected parties must attempt to negotiate an agreement between themselves to resolve this conflict. Second, if the parties are unable to come to an agreement between themselves, either of the parties may file a petition for relief in U.S. district court in the district in which the conflict is located. Third, after receiving a petition, the court would determine whether an actual conflict exists. Fourth, if the court determines that a conflict does in fact exist, the court would determine whether the public interest, as determined by the greater economic benefit of each mineral, is best served by suspension of the federal coal lease or suspension or termination of all or part of the oil and gas lease. Fifth, a panel of three experts would be assembled to determine the value of the mineral of lesser economic value. Each of the parties in conflict would appoint one of the three experts. The third expert would be chosen jointly from the two parties. Finally, after the panel issues its final valuation report, the court would enter an order setting the compensation that is due the developer who had to temporarily or permanently forgo his development rights. This compensation would be paid by the owner of the mineral of greater economic value. A credit against federal royalties would also be available for this compensation price for limited number of situations where neither the existence of the conflict nor compensation to the conflicting mineral owner was foreseen in the original federal lease bid. The ``Powder River Basin Resource Development Act of 2001'' has several benefits over the present system. First, it requires parties whose mineral interests come into conflict to attempt to negotiate an agreement among themselves before either one of them avails himself of the expedited resolution mechanism. No such requirement exists today. Second, it directs the Secretary of the Interior to encourage expedited development of federal minerals that (1) are leased pursuant to the federal Mineral Leasing Act; (2) exist in conflict areas; and (3) which may otherwise be lost or bypassed. As such, this legislation encourages full and expeditious development of federally leased resources in this narrow conflict area where it is economically feasible and safe to do so. Third and finally, this bill provides a fair and expeditious procedure to resolve conflicts which cannot be resolved between the two parties themselves and it does so by ensuring that any mineral owner will be fully compensated for any suspension or loss of his mineral rights. In turn, this proposal will prevent the serious economic hardship to thousands of families and the State treasury that could occur if mineral development is stalled for an indefinite amount of time due to protracted litigation under the current system. This legislation is the result of over two years of work and represents the input of all the stakeholders: coalbed methane producers, deep oil and gas developers, the coal industry, landowners, the State of Wyoming, and the Department of the Interior. It is nearly identical to legislation that was favorably reported out of the Senate Energy Committee last summer by a voice vote. By providing a fair, expeditious, cost-effective and certain method to resolve conflicts between mineral producers in one of the most bountiful energy regions in the world, the ``Powder River Basin Resource Development Act of 2001'' represents an important chapter in the continuing effort to develop a comprehensive national energy policy for the 21st century.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Powder River Basin Resource Development Act of 2001.'' This legislation will provide a procedure for the orderly and timely resolution of disputes between coal producers and oil and gas operators in the Powder River Basin in north-central Wyoming and southern Montana. This legislation is cosponsored by my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas. The Powder River Basin in Wyoming and southern Montana is one of the richest energy resource regions in the world. This area contains the largest coal reserves in the United States, providing nearly thirty percent of America's total coal production. This region also contains rich reserves of oil and gas, including coalbed methane. Wyoming is the fifth largest producer of natural gas in the county and the sixth largest producer of crude oil. The Powder River Basin plays an ever- increasing role in the development of coalbed methane as Wyoming continues to help meet the growing needs for natural gas in the Rocky Mountain region and the country as a whole. The Powder River Basin and the State of Wyoming as a whole provide many of the resources that heat our homes, fuel our cars, generate electricity for our computers, microwaves, and televisions. In short, there is very little that any one of us does in a day that is not affected by the resources of coal, oil, and natural gas. The production of these natural resources represents a vital part of the economy of my home state of Wyoming. The coal and oil and gas industries employ more than 21,000 people in Wyoming. We in Wyoming educate our students, build our roads, and provide our citizens with many of their social services through property taxes, severance taxes, and mineral royalties collected from the development of these energy resources. Since Wyoming has no state income tax, our State relies very heavily on revenues from the minerals extraction industries for our tax base. Given the great importance both the coal and oil and gas industries have to Wyoming's economy, the State of Wyoming and the federal government have tried to encourage concurrent development in areas where it is feasible and safe to do so. Unfortunately, this is not always possible. This legislation provides a procedure for the fair and expeditious resolution of conflicts between oil and gas producers and coal producers who have conflicting mineral interests on land in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and southern Montana. This legislation establishes a specific procedure to resolve conflicts between coal producers and oil and gas producers when their mineral development rights come into conflict because of overlapping leases. First, this proposal requires that once a potential conflict is identified, the affected parties must attempt to negotiate an agreement between themselves to resolve this conflict. Second, if the parties are unable to come to an agreement between themselves, either of the parties may file a petition for relief in U.S. district court in the district in which the conflict is located. Third, after receiving a petition, the court would determine whether an actual conflict exists. Fourth, if the court determines that a conflict does in fact exist, the court would determine whether the public interest, as determined by the greater economic benefit of each mineral, is best served by suspension of the federal coal lease or suspension or termination of all or part of the oil and gas lease. Fifth, a panel of three experts would be assembled to determine the value of the mineral of lesser economic value. Each of the parties in conflict would appoint one of the three experts. The third expert would be chosen jointly from the two parties. Finally, after the panel issues its final valuation report, the court would enter an order setting the compensation that is due the developer who had to temporarily or permanently forgo his development rights. This compensation would be paid by the owner of the mineral of greater economic value. A credit against federal royalties would also be available for this compensation price for limited number of situations where neither the existence of the conflict nor compensation to the conflicting mineral owner was foreseen in the original federal lease bid. The ``Powder River Basin Resource Development Act of 2001'' has several benefits over the present system. First, it requires parties whose mineral interests come into conflict to attempt to negotiate an agreement among themselves before either one of them avails himself of the expedited resolution mechanism. No such requirement exists today. Second, it directs the Secretary of the Interior to encourage expedited development of federal minerals that (1) are leased pursuant to the federal Mineral Leasing Act; (2) exist in conflict areas; and (3) which may otherwise be lost or bypassed. As such, this legislation encourages full and expeditious development of federally leased resources in this narrow conflict area where it is economically feasible and safe to do so. Third and finally, this bill provides a fair and expeditious procedure to resolve conflicts which cannot be resolved between the two parties themselves and it does so by ensuring that any mineral owner will be fully compensated for any suspension or loss of his mineral rights. In turn, this proposal will prevent the serious economic hardship to thousands of families and the State treasury that could occur if mineral development is stalled for an indefinite amount of time due to protracted litigation under the current system. This legislation is the result of over two years of work and represents the input of all the stakeholders: coalbed methane producers, deep oil and gas developers, the coal industry, landowners, the State of Wyoming, and the Department of the Interior. It is nearly identical to legislation that was favorably reported out of the Senate Energy Committee last summer by a voice vote. By providing a fair, expeditious, cost-effective and certain method to resolve conflicts between mineral producers in one of the most bountiful energy regions in the world, the ``Powder River Basin Resource Development Act of 2001'' represents an important chapter in the continuing effort to develop a comprehensive national energy policy for the 21st century.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor a campaign to raise disability awareness that originated in my State of Wyoming. I am very proud of the mission behind this effort that, in 3 short years, has gained steam nationally and internationally. Known as the Silver Ribbon Campaign, this effort to honor disability awareness month, March, was begun by the Natrona County School District #1 Student Support Services and the Parent Resource Center. The campaign has generated significant activity among local officials and is responsible for a variety of training, educational and interactive activities related to raising disability awareness in the broader community. In addition to engaging local officials and the general public, the campaign has worked successfully with the business community and numerous media outlets to ensure a diverse yet unified front in heightening awareness about the reality of living with a disability. I am particularly proud of the campaign's special effort to include activities targeted towards raising awareness among children. Not only will the public library host a reading hour on disability awareness, with awareness bookmarks available for the public, but public school buses and other public transportation will display the campaign's trademark silver ribbon during the month of March. The campaign has issued the silver ribbon as a pin, and since its inception in 1998, more than 250,00 pins, along with thousands of balloons and displays, have been used to raise awareness around the State of Wyoming. As I mentioned before, similar activities are being duplicated nationwide. I am honored but not surprised to once again have the opportunity to highlight a community-based effort invented in Wyoming that other communities are modeling. I hope hearing me today will encourage my colleagues to introduce their own State to the Silver Ribbon Campaign and further raise disability awareness in this country. This is a critical effort that every community should embrace.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it is my understanding the bill managers are looking at what is left on the bankruptcy bill at this moment. Senator Wellstone's bill will be the amendment pending. He is planning on being here at 1:15. I had heard some concern that most of the actual bankruptcy issues had been covered and we were just doing some peripheral ones. There is some concern on our side as to what the process is going to be, too. It is my understanding they are discussing that now. The chairman probably can give us some information.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Breaux for his efforts on ergonomics. These injuries are happening in this country and we need to do something about them. I appreciated the conciseness with which he made a statement during the last debate we had on ergonomics. I wish his bill more closely followed the statement he made. I suspect there is leeway in there to do exactly what he said when he made that statement, and I think this comes fairly close. I hope we will be able to work together to make some changes in what is in his amendment. Most of all, what I hope is that the Senators who are interested in this issue will work with me. I am the subcommittee chairman for Employment, Safety and Training. It is all of the labor issues. It includes the ergonomics issue. I had planned to begin a process of holding some hearings. I already have my staff members looking at past efforts--and there are supposed to be 10 or 12 years of efforts on ergonomics already--to see what was done and where it went wrong before. Also, I am scheduling some meetings with Secretary Chao. I am pleased to have other people involved in those meetings with me. We need to come up with a mechanism that will actually prevent injuries. I am not interested in the mechanism that just does paperwork or just puts costs on business. I know the people who submitted this amendment--particularly Senator Breaux--are not interested in having that either. I have been trying to work on this compliance issue through a number of mechanisms since I got here. One of them is something called the SAFE Act. It was encouragement for businesses--particularly small businesses--to hire professional consultants to come in and take a look at their business. I would suggest using OSHA people, but they are already overworked doing OSHA inspections. In State plan States, which are the States where there are the least OSHA accidents, there are more inspections but there is more consultation that is done. So I have put a huge emphasis on consultation with businesses. The way the consultation works in States is the OSHA team, or inspector, comes in and looks at the place and says this is wrong, this is wrong, and this is wrong. If they say that, you better fix it. And if you fix it, then you are not subject to the penalties. That is an incentive process. That is what I envision for compliance with an ergonomics rule as well: Somebody helping the small businessman. I am not worried about the big businesspeople because they have the VPP program, the specialists, and they have the professionals on staff. It is the little guy, and that is what we talked about when we did the ergonomics CRA last week. They cannot digest all the information. They do not even know what is absolutely essential and what is suggested. If somebody can tell them what to do--they know the value of their employees; they want to protect their employees. In most instances, they do not know how to protect their employees. If there is more of the consultation aspect to it and the incentive to do it, if the folks come in and tell you to do those things and you do those things, you will not be fined. I am so pleased there is a compliance piece to this. Something I hope will be incorporated in the future, perhaps even in this rule, is the ability of the managers to talk to the employee or employees directly. The way the current national labor standards read is that management cannot talk to the employees unless they are in a union. Of course, if they are in a union, then the management can talk to the representative of the employees. We are missing this step of being able to say to an employee: How are you feeling? How is your workstation? Are there any improvements we can make? These are folks who are doing that same job in all of the examples we use, the same job day in and day out. They are the experts on it. They know the things that can be done to make their work easier. Those are the things that need to be incorporated in ergonomics: very specific suggestions for a particular kind of a--it is not even for a particular kind of business because within an industry, several different businesses will do the same operation differently. If they conferred more, which I am not sure they are allowed to do either, then they would probably wind up with a standard method of doing things, and they would be able to compare the ergonomics process, as well as any other safety issue and come to an agreement on how those safety issues can be reached. Another thing that needs to be done while we are at it is changing the rulemaking process. One of the things that fascinated me in my comments and visits with Assistant Secretary Jeffress, who is in charge of OSHA, was that in the 28 years OSHA has been in effect, there has not been one rule revised even though there have been huge changes in the workplace. What that tells me is that our rulemaking process is so cumbersome, so subject to court action that we cannot take a look at things that were done 28 years ago even though the technologies have changed tremendously. There are some things that need to be done. I wish we had been consulted a bit more on some of the specific wording. I know there is an effort to work together on some of these things, so we may be able to come up with an agreement in a short while so this amendment can be accepted. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for making this effort, for getting us started on it. I hope he will work with me on the process. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Louisiana for their consideration and their work in a bipartisan way to see we get something done and to extend that opportunity to go to meetings with Secretary Chao and also to participate in hearings on my subcommittee. We want to make some progress on this issue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act introduced today by Senator Dorgan. I am an original cosponsor and I encourage each of my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this bill. We had to take a look at the Internet sales tax issue for people who might be using legislative vehicles to develop huge loopholes in our current system. We are federally mandating states into a sales tax exemption. We need to preserve the system for those cities, towns, counties, and states that rely on the ability to collect the sales tax they are currently getting. There are some critical issues here that have to be solved to keep the stability of state and local government--just the stability of it-- not to increase sales tax, just protect what is there right now. I believe the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act is a monumental step forward in protecting, yet enhancing, the current system. Certainly, no Senator wants to take steps that will unreasonably burden the development and growth of the Internet. At the same time, we must also be sensitive to issues of basic competitive fairness and the negative affect our action or inaction can have on brick-and-mortar retailers, a critical economic sector and employment force in all American society, especially in rural states like Wyoming. In addition, we must consider the legitimate need of state and local governments to have the flexibility they need to generate resources to adequately fund their programs and operations. If the loophole exists, I can share a method for local retailers to avoid sales tax collection too--but creating this loophole will lead to others--pay attention here. Sales tax collection and federal and state income tax could be in the same boat, if sales tax collection is no longer necessary on Internet sales purely by virtue of the sale over the Internet. Why shouldn't an employee whose check is written on the Internet and transmitted directly to his bank account not owe any income tax? Both would be Internet tax loopholes--tax collection exemptions forced by an all-knowing federal government. As the only accountant in the Senate, I have a unique perspective on the dozens of tax proposals that are introduced in Congress each year. In addition, my service on the state and local level and my experiences as a small business owner enable me to consider these bills from more than one viewpoint. I understand the importance of protecting and promoting the growth of Internet commerce because of its potential economic benefits. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. In addition, it is estimated that the growth of online businesses will create millions of new jobs nationwide in the coming years. Therefore, I do not support a tax on the use of Internet itself. I do, however, have concerns about using the Internet as a sales tax loophole. Sales taxes go directly to state and local governments and I am very leery of any federal legislation that bypasses their traditional ability to raise revenue to perform needed services such as school funding, road repair and law enforcement. I will not force states into a huge new exemption. While those who advocate a permanent loophole on the collection of a sales tax over the Internet claim to represent the principles of tax reduction, they are actually advocating a tax increase. Simply put, if Congress continues to allow sales over the Internet to go untaxed and electronic commerce continues to grow as predicted, revenues to state and local governments will fall and property taxes will have to be increased to offset lost revenue or states who do not have or believe in state income taxes will be forced to start one. After months of hard work, negotiations, and compromise, the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act has been introduced. I would like to commend Senator Dorgan on his commitment to finding a solution and working with all parties to find that solution. The bill extends the existing moratorium on Internet access, multiple, and discriminatory taxes for an additional four years through December 31, 2005. Throughout the past several years, we have heard that catalog and Internet companies say they are willing to allow and collect sales tax on interstate sales (regardless of traditional or Internet sales) if states will simplify collections to one rate per state sent to one location in that state. I think that is a reasonable request. I have heard the argument that computers make it possible to handle several thousand tax entities, but from an auditing standpoint as well as simplicity for small business, I support one rate per state. I think the states should have some responsibility for redistribution not a business forced to do work for government. Therefore, the bill would put Congress on record as urging states and localities to develop a streamlined sales and use tax system, which would include a single, blended tax rate with which all remote sellers can comply. You need to be aware that states are prohibited from gaining benefit from the authority extended in the bill to require sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales if the states have not adopted the simplified sales and use tax system. Further, the bill would authorize states to enter into an Interstate Sales and Use Tax Compact through which members would adopt the streamlined sales and use tax system. Congressional authority and consent to enter into such a compact would expire if it has not occurred by January 1, 2006. The bill also authorizes states to require all other sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales unless Congress has acted to disapprove the compact by law within a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it. We introduce this bill because we do not think there is adequate protection now. It is very important we do not build electronic loopholes on the Internet, an ever-changing Internet, one that is growing by leaps and bounds, one that is finding new technology virtually every day. What we know as the Internet today is not what we will be using by the time the moratorium is finalized. More and more people are using the Internet everyday. Mr. President, I recognize this body has a constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. Furthermore, I understand the desire of several Senators to protect and promote the growth of Internet commerce. Internet commerce is an exciting field. It has a lot of growth potential. The new business will continue to create millions of new jobs in the coming years. The exciting thing about that for Wyomingites is that our merchants do not have to go where the people are. For people in my state, that means their products are no longer confined to a local market. They do not have to rely on expensive catalogs to sell merchandise to the big city folks. They do not have to travel all the way to Asia to display their goods. The customer can come to us on the Internet. It is a remarkable development, and it will push more growth for small manufacturers in rural America, especially in my state. We have seen some of the economic potential in the Internet and will continue this progress. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. It brings information to your fingertips when you want it and how you want it. I was the mayor of a small town, Gillette, Wyoming, for 8 years. I later served in the State House for 5 years and the State Senate for 5 years. Throughout my public life, I have always worked to reduce taxes, to return more of people's hard-earned wages to them. I am not here to argue in favor of taxes. There were times in Gillette when we had to make tough decisions. I was mayor during the boom time when the size of our town doubled in just a few years. We had to be very creative to be sure that our revenue sources would cover the necessary public services--important services like sewer, water, curb and gutter, filling in potholes, shoveling snow, collecting garbage, and mostly water. It is a tough job because the impact of your decision is felt by all of your neighbors. Hardly any of those problems is solved without money. When you are the mayor of a small town, you are on call 24 hours a day. You are in the phone book. People can call you at night and tell you that the city sewer is backing up into their house. I was fascinated how they were always sure that it was the city's sewer that was doing it. Therefore, it is important that we do not cut towns out of an historic source of revenue. They provide services you really depend on. Remember you cannot flush your toilet over the Internet. The point is that the government that is closest to the people is also on the shortest time line to get results. I think it is the hardest work. I am very concerned with any piece of legislation that mandates or restricts local government's ability to meet the needs of its citizens. This has the potential to provide electronic loopholes that will take away all of their revenue. The Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act would designate a level playing field for all involved-- business, government, and the consumer. I do strongly support this bill. The current system of collecting revenues for those towns and states should be preserved--preserved on a level playing field for all involved. I do not think we have all the answers, or we would not be asking for this bill. So whatever we do, we have to have a bill that will preserve the way that small business and small towns function at the present time. Our bill is critical for towns, small businesses, and you and me. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.