Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment actually came into the bill from the original parts of the bill, Senator Kyl's and my investigations from the Terrorism and Technology Subcommittee. What we found is the student visa program was greatly in disarray. We found that we have about 660,000 students coming in a year, and there is no tracking of any of them. Nobody knows whether they are really at a school. Up to this point, the schools have had no responsibility to report that a student has arrived, that a student is taking this or that course and, yes, that the student has stayed in school. So I think Senator Byrd's amendment strengthens what is already in the bill. I think it makes it a better bill. We intend to follow up on this. Senator Kennedy and I have discussed it. We intend to see, in fact, that the schools do keep their word and do, in fact, do the reporting they are required to do under this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So I want to identify myself with where the Senator is going. If these two States were to receive a waiver from the oxygenate requirement, we would certainly be satisfied.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. All right.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I respond, as best I can?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, for his inquiry.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is my understanding, certainly Senator Kyl, Senator Brownback, and I, along with the Republicans with whom the Senator was concerned at our subcommittee meeting, will support the appropriation. It is my understanding that roughly $743 million of this amount is covered in the administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request. Therefore, the amount not covered is $440 million. It is also my understanding the administration has allocated all but $327 million of the $10 billion that was previously allocated for homeland security in last year's emergency supplemental. I, for one, would certainly support my chairman on the Appropriations Committee to take whatever is required from the unspecified $10 billion additional fund in the defense budget that was put in by the President. I think as part of defense, homeland defense is the most vital part of it, and this certainly provides for that. So I hope that is at least a partial answer to the Senator's question.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will take a crack at it, if I may.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from West Virginia in the Chamber. I know he would like to speak. Any time he stands up, I will end my remarks and allow the Chair to recognize him. I did want to add to the comments Senator Kennedy has made. I am very pleased that Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Kyl, and I have joined in authorizing this legislation. I am very proud that more than 60 of our colleagues have joined in cosponsoring it. I had a chance on Friday, along with the other Senators, to describe the legislation. I would like to make a few comments now. I sincerely believe, in the wake of September 11, this is the most important bill this Senate can pass in terms of being able to begin to fix what is a very broken system and also to begin to change our priorities. Our immigration policies have been in the past largely driven by our humanitarian and economic interests. That has changed today because we now realize that security of our borders is extraordinarily important and that our visa system, as a product of many errors and many instances in which it doesn't produce the dividends that it was expected to produce for a lot of reasons, needs changing. Before September 11, just over 300 U.S. Border Patrol agents were assigned to the job of detecting and intercepting illegal border crossers along our vast 4,000-mile United States-Canadian border. Nine hundred State Department consular officers were assigned to conduct background checks and issue visas to 6 million foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States in a whole host of capacities--as students, tourists, temporary workers, and as temporary visitors. The State Department's policy was that consular officers did not have to perform extensive background checks for students coming from such terrorist-supporting states as Syria or Sudan. Only an intermediate background check was required for Iranian students. More extensive checks were required for students from Iraq and Libya. Frontline agencies, such as the INS, were chronically understaffed, used obsolete data management systems, and had substantial management problems. We all knew that. Today, the INS does not have a reliable tracking system to determine how many of our visitors legitimately enter the United States and how many leave the country after their visas expire. It almost seems effortless, the way the terrorists got into this country. They didn't have to slip into the country as stowaways on sea vessels or sneak through the borders evading Federal authorities. Most, if not all, appeared to have come in with temporary visas, which are routinely granted to tourists, students, and other short-term visitors to the United States. Clearly, our guard was down. September 11 clearly pointed out other shortcomings of the immigration and visa system. Just the sheer volume of travelers to our country each year illustrates the need for an efficiently run and technologically advanced immigration system. Most people don't really realize how many people come into our country, how little we know about them, and whether they leave when they are required to leave. Each year, we have over 300 million border crossings of individuals from other countries. For the most part, these individuals are legitimate visitors to our country. We currently have no way of tracking all of them. We had 30.4 million nonimmigrants entering the United States during one year, 1999. That is the most recent year for which INS has statistics. Now, 23 million of them entered as tourists on the visa waiver program--23 million from 28 different countries. No visas, little scrutiny, no knowledge where they go in the United States or whether they leave once their visas expire. Another startling fact is that the INS estimates that over 100,000 blank passports have been stolen from government offices in participating countries in the visa waiver program in recent years. Now, why is that significant? Right now, countries that participate are not required to report information on missing passports. That will change under this bill. The number of passports reported stolen or lost by visa waiver countries is not always entered into the lookout database or entered in a timely manner. That, too, will change when this legislation is enacted. Abuse of the visa waiver program poses threats to U.S. security and increases illegal immigration. These visas are often sold on the black market for as much as $7,500 per visa. Passports from visa waiver countries are often the document of choice for terrorists. Consider this: Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian convicted of plotting to blow up the Los Angeles International Airport in 1999, trafficked in a number of these false passports, at least one of which was linked to a theft from a townhall in Belgium, a visa waiver country. In addition, two members of an al-Qaida cell who assassinated the Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud just before September 11 traveled from Brussels to London to Karachi on stolen Belgian passports. Mr. Robert Reid--the shoe bomber--had a visa from the United Kingdom, another visa waiver country. These are some of the problems our bill seeks to stop in the visa waiver program. Each year, more than a half million foreign nationals enter with student visas. Most recently, 660,000 foreign students entered in the fall of 2001. That is just last fall. Within the last 10 years, 16,000 have come from such terrorist-supporting States as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, and Syria. The foreign student visa system is one of the most underregulated systems we have today. We have seen bribes, bureaucracy, and many problems with this system that leave it wide open to abuse by terrorists and other criminals. For example, in the early and mid 1990s, in my own State of California, in the San Diego area, 5 officials at 4 California colleges were convicted of taking bribes, providing counterfeit education documents, and fraudulently applying for more than 100 foreign student visas. These are university officials in that area who practiced fraud and said students were there when they were not, and they falsified grades. They were convicted for doing so. However, it is unclear what steps the Immigration and Naturalization Service took to find and deport the foreign nationals involved in that scheme. It has been all too clear to those of us on the committee-- Senators Kennedy and Brownback on Immigration, and Senator Kyl and I on the Technology and Terrorist Subcommittee--that without an adequate tracking system, our country becomes a sieve, which is what it is today, creating ample opportunities for terrorists to enter and establish their operations without detection. Consider these facts: On May 28, 2001--last May--11 months ago, a criminal warrant was issued for Mohamed Atta's arrest in Broward County, FL, after he failed to appear in court for a traffic violation. On July 5, Atta was pulled over for speeding in Palm Beach, FL. At that time, the officer conducted a criminal search on Atta and found no outstanding warrants. After a trip to Spain, in which he allegedly met with coconspirators, Atta entered the United States for the final time--that was on July 19--despite past illegal incidents and the fact that his name was on a terrorist watch list. Instead, Atta was allowed into the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor after informing an INS officer that he had applied for a student visa. One of the hijackers entered on a student visa and, though he never showed up for classes, was never reported because the INS stopped taking such reports in 1988. In other words, the INS doesn't even take reports if you don't show up for class when you come in on a foreign student visa. In December 1999, Ahmed Ressam, otherwise known as the ``millennium bomber,'' crossed the northern border into the United States with the intent to bomb Los Angeles International Airport. He presented a legitimate Canadian passport under the name Benny Norris, and a computer check of Norris showed no reason to detain him. However, had they checked the name Ahmed Ressam, they would have found that Ressam had been arrested four times in Canada, had a pending warrant for deportation, and was being investigated by the French and Canadian Governments for being a terrorist. It was only because a U.S. Customs agent in Port Angeles, WA, voiced suspicions about his demeanor, causing Ressam to flee on foot, that Ressam was then arrested. This man had an extensive criminal record and terrorist ties. Yet there was no data system to supply the Border Patrol with such crucial information. Clearly, existing technologies that employed biometric identifiers could have been used to uncover Ressam's criminal background even though he had used a false name. We do this in our bill. We must make it more difficult for foreign visitors to enter our country using false identification and take sufficient steps to combat and prevent identification and visa fraud. The world might well be in an electronic age, but agencies such as the INS are still struggling with the paper-bound, bureaucratic system. Even in instances where technological leaps have been made, like the issuance of more than 4.5 million smart border crossing cards with biometric data, the technology is still not being used. In other words, we appropriated the money, 4.5 million of these technologically superior cards were issued, but INS never put in the laser reading systems. According to the Department of Justice inspector general, INS has approximately 100 different automated information systems for each function of the agency. Few of these systems talk to each other. This is a stark reminder of how much work needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system. By now, we are all aware of the various proposals that have emerged to restructure or dismantle the INS. While restructuring the INS is certainly an idea worth examining, the most immediate need today is for Congress to enact this legislation because restructuring it is not going to cure any of the problems we address in this legislation. Restructuring it does not provide additional inspectors, does not provide additional border patrol, does not provide for an interoperable database system, does not provide for visa waiver reform, does not provide for student visa oversight monitoring and tracking. Our bill would do just these things. It attempts to transform agencies, such as the INS, from a paper-driven bureaucracy to one that better manages its mission by upgraded information management and sharing systems. It would enable the INS and consular offices to access vital intelligence information in real time before they issue visas and permit entry to the United States. The INS has often argued that it did not have sufficient intelligence to prevent the terrorists from entering the United States. However, this failure of intelligence information does not explain why the INS would admit at least three terrorists who clearly were inadmissible at the time they were permitted to enter the country. Last year, in the subcommittee that I chair and on which Senator Kyl is the ranking member, we heard the testimony of Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, Mary Ryan. She testified that the consular staff felt terrible because they had granted visas to some of the 19 terrorists. At least three of the hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, the alleged ringleader, had stayed in the United States longer than authorized on their previous visits, making their visas invalid. Because the consular officers had no information on these individuals, they had no reason at the time to deny the visas. If the INS had a system in place to identify visa overstayers, this might have enabled both the State Department to further investigate the backgrounds of the terrorists and the INS inspectors to enforce the law by stopping these terrorists before they entered the country. The INS should have had the information at their disposal. They either did not collect the information or they did not have the means for the INS inspectors on the front lines to access it. In the wake of September 11, we know the chances of another terrorist attack are great, and we know it is unconscionable for our systems to allow entry of another terrorist into the United States. Unless we move on this bill, we cannot possibly remedy the faults in our system. The legislation would require the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to issue machine readable, tamper resistant visas that use standardized biometric identifiers. This in itself is a big improvement. I myself have visited streets where in a half hour, one can buy a green card that certainly no layperson can tell the difference between a forged green card produced on this street in Los Angeles and a real green card. Our bill allows INS inspectors at ports of entry to determine whether a visa properly identifies a visa holder and, thus, combats identity fraud. Second, it will make visas harder to counterfeit. Third, in conjunction with the installation of scanners at all ports of entries to read the visas, the INS can track the arrival and departure of aliens and more reliably identify aliens who overstay their visas. The bill also provides that aliens from countries that sponsor international terrorism cannot receive nonimmigrant visas unless the Attorney General and the Secretary of State determine that they do not pose a threat to the safety of Americans or the national security of our country. American embassies and consulates abroad will be required to establish terrorist lookout committees that meet monthly to ensure that the names of known terrorists are routinely and consistently brought to the attention of consular officials, our Nation's first line of defense. The bill contains a number of other related provisions as well, but the gist of the legislation is this: Where we can provide law enforcement, more information about potentially dangerous foreign nationals, we do so. Where we can reform our border crossing system to weed out or deter terrorists and others who would do us harm, we do so. And where we can update technology to meet the demands of the modern war against terror, we do that as well. As we prepare to modify our immigration system, we must be sure to enact changes that are realistic and feasible. We must also provide the necessary tools to implement them. The legislation Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Kyl, and I have crafted is an important and strong first step, but this is only the beginning of a long, difficult process. As the Senator from West Virginia has pointed out, this legislation is only as good as the appropriations that follow forthwith. The annual cost is about $1.1 billion. The 3-year cost is about $3.5 billion. This leaves for this year about $753 million that we will have to come up with to meet the cost of the first year. My understanding is that this money is available in unallocated dollars, but that, of course, has to be checked out, or we should take it from another source. I guess the biggest assurance I can give, as a lowly appropriator, to the distinguished powerful chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is I will do my level best to lobby my colleagues to produce the money and, with whatever influence I probably do not have with the administration, try to influence the administration, as well, because I truly believe if we are to protect our people, this bill is a prerequisite. Unless we tighten up our loopholes and provide the funding for the technology we need, we are going to be nowhere. That is not to say that a terrorist still cannot come in, but it is to say we can make it very much more difficult for them. So I conclude by saying that for some time many of us have been calling for reforms of our visa and border security system. We should have acted in 1993. We did not, and that left us vulnerable to the events of September 11. We are now in a position where we are reacting to this latest tragedy, and I think it is really important we act now to get this legislation on the books. Then it is up to each and every one of us to do everything we possibly can to see that it is funded promptly and, more importantly, for the Immigration Subcommittee to really exercise oversight over the INS and oversight over the Consular Affairs Division of the State Department to see that the necessary reforms do get put in place with respect to the visa system. There is not much else I can say, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, without going through it again because I went through it on Friday, a summary of the bill and also some critical statistics on the number of people coming into our country, and particularly the specific status under which they come and the loopholes that exist.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, National Crime Victims' Rights Week begins on Sunday. Next week, communities across the country will be holding observances, candlelight vigils, rallies, and other events to honor and support crime victims and their rights. Also, in just a few days--specifically, April 19--we will mark the 7th anniversary of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. That attack resulted in the deaths of 168 people. And it was just over seven months ago that, over a period of two hours and three minutes, we suffered the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in our history. Over 3,000 people died in the attacks on that day--more than died at Pearl Harbor. Thus, it seems appropriate for all of us in this esteemed body to stop a minute and think about victims' rights. Last year, the Senate debated a proposed constitutional amendment drafted by Senator Kyl and me to protect the rights of victims of violent crime. The amendment had been reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 12 to 5. After 82 Senators voted to proceed to consideration of the amendment, there was a vigorous debate on the floor of the Senate. Some Senators raised concerns about the amendment, saying that it was too long or that it read too much like a statute. Ultimately, in the face of a threatened filibuster, Senator Kyl and I decided to withdraw the amendment. We then hunkered down with constitutional experts such as Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School to see if we could revise the amendment to meet Senators' concerns. We also worked with constitutional experts at the Department of Justice and the White House. And we have come up with a new and improved draft of the amendment. This new amendment provides many of the same rights as the old amendment. Specifically, the amendment would give crime victims the rights to be notified, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their case. It would ensure that their views are considered and they are treated fairly. It would ensure that their interest in a speedy resolution of the case, safety, and claims for restitution are not ignored. And it would do so in a way that would not abridge the rights of defendants or offenders, or otherwise disrupt the delicate balance of our Constitution. There are many reasons why we need a constitutional amendment. First, a constitutional amendment will balance the scales of justice. Currently, while criminal defendants have almost two dozen separate constitutional rights--fifteen of them provided by amendments to the U.S. Constitution--there is not a single word in the Constitution about crime victims. These rights trump the statutory and state constitutional rights of crime victims because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. To level the playing field, crime victims need rights in the U.S. Constitution. In the event of a conflict between a victim's and a defendant's rights, the court will be able to balance those rights and determine which party has the most compelling argument. Second, a constitutional amendment will fix the patchwork of victims' rights laws. Eighteen states lack state constitutional victims' rights amendments. And the 32 existing state victims' rights amendments differ from each other. Also, virtually every state has statutory protections for victims, but these vary considerably across the country. Only a federal constitutional amendment can ensure a uniform national floor for victims' rights. Third, a constitutional amendment will restore rights that existed when the Constitution was written. It is a little know fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted, it was standard practice for victims--not public prosecutors-- to prosecute criminal cases. Because victims were parties to most criminal cases, they enjoyed the basic rights to notice, to be present, and be heard. Hence, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not mention victims. Now, of course, it is extremely rare for a victim to undertake a criminal prosecution. Thus, victims have none of the basic procedural rights they used to enjoy. Victims should receive some of the modest notice and participation rights they enjoyed at the time that the Constitution was drafted. Fourth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because mere state law is insufficient. State victims' rights laws lacking the force of federal constitutional law are often given short shrift. A Justice Department-sponsored study and other studies have found that, even in states with strong legal protections for victims; rights, many victims are denied those rights. The studies have also found that statutes are insufficient to guarantee victims' rights. Only a federal constitutional amendment can ensure that crime victims receive the rights they are due. Fifth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because federal statutory law is insufficient. The leading statutory alternative to the Victims' Rights Amendment would only directly cover certain violent crimes prosecuted in Federal court. Thus, it would slight more than 99 percent of victims of violent crime. We should acknowledge that Federal statutes have been tried and found wanting. It is time for us to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Oklahoma City bombing case offers another reason why we need a constitutional amendment. This case shows how even the strongest Federal statute is too weak to protect victims in the face of a defendant's constitutional rights. In that case, two Federal victims' statutes were not enough to give victims of the bombing a clear right to watch the trial and still testify at the sentencing--even though one of the statutes was passed with the specific purpose of allowing the victims to do just that. Let me quote from the first of these statutes: the Victims of Crime Bill of Rights, passed in 1990. That Bill of rights provides in part that: A crime victim has the following rights: The right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless the court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial. That statute further states that Federal Government officers and employees ``engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that victims of crime are accorded the[se] rights.'' The law also provides that ``[t]his section does not create a cause of action or defense in favor of any person arising out of the failure to accord to a victim the[se] rights.'' In spite of the law, the judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case ruled--without any request from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys--that no victim who saw any portion of the case could testify about the bombing's impact at a possible sentencing hearing: The Justice Department asked the judge to exempt victims who would not be ``factual witnesses at trial'' but who might testify at a sentencing hearing about the impact of the bombing on their lives. The judge denied the motion. The victims were then given until the lunchbreak to decide whether to watch the proceedings or remain eligible to testify at a sentencing hearing. In the hour that they had, some of the victims opted to watch the proceedings; others decided to leave to remain eligible to testify at the sentencing hearing. Subsequently, the Justice Department asked the court to reconsider its order in light of the 1990 Victims' Bill of Rights. Bombing victims then filed their own motion to raise their rights under the Victims' Bill of Rights. The court denied both motions. With regard to the victims' motion, the judge held that the victims lacked standing. The judge stated that the victims would not be able to separate the ``experience of trial'' from the ``experience of loss from the conduct in question.'' The judge also alluded to concerns about the defendants' constitutional rights, the common law, and rules of evidence. The victims and DOJ separately appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. That court ruled that the victims lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution because they had no ``legally protected interest'' to be present at trial and thus had suffered no ``injury in fact'' from their exclusion. The victims and DOJ then asked the entire Tenth Circuit to review that decision. Forty-nine members of Congress, all six attorneys general in the Tenth Circuit, and many of the leading crime victims' organizations filed briefs in support of the victims. All to no avail. The Victims' Clarification Act of 1997 was then introduced in Congress. That act provided that watching a trial does not constitute grounds for denying victims the chance to provide an impact statement. This bill passed the House 414 to 13 and the Senate by unanimous consent. Two days later, President Clinton signed it into law, explaining that ``when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.'' The victims then filed a motion asserting a right to attend the trial under the new law. However, the judge declined to apply the law as written. He concluded that ``any motions raising constitutional questions about this legislation would be premature and would present questions issues that are not now ripe for decision.'' Moreover, he held that it could address issues of possible prejudicial impact from attending the trial by interviewing the witnesses after the trial. The judge also refused to grant the victims a hearing on the application of the new law, concluding that his ruling rendered their request ``moot.'' The victims then faced a painful decision: watch the trial or preserve their right to testify at the sentencing hearing. Many victims gave up their right to watch the trial as a result. A constitutional amendment would help ensure that victims of a domestic terrorist attack such as the Oklahoma City bombing have standing and that their arguments for a right to be present are not dismissed as ``unripe.'' A constitutional amendment would give victims of violent crime an unambiguous right to watch a trial and still testify at sentencing. There is strong and wide support for a constitutional amendment. I am pleased that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have endorsed the amendment. I greatly appreciate their support. And I am also pleased that both former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore have all expressed support for a constitutional amendment on victims' rights. Moreover, in the last Congress, the Victims' Rights Amendment was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 41 Senators. I have spoken to many of my colleagues about the amendment we introduce today and I am hopeful that it will receive even more support in this Congress. In addition: Both the Democratic and Republican Party platforms call for a victims' rights amendment. Governors in 49 out of 50 states have called for an amendment. Four former U.S. Attorneys General, including Attorney General Reno, support an amendment. Attorney General Ashcroft supports an amendment. Forty state attorneys general support an amendment. Major national victims' rights groups--including Parents of Murdered Children, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, and the National Organization for Victim Assistance--support the amendment. Many law enforcement groups, including the Nation Troopers' Coalition, the International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, support an amendment. Constitutional scholars such as Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe support an amendment. The amendment has received strong support around the country. Thirty- two states have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of almost 80 percent. I am delighted to join my good friend Senator Jon Kyl in sponsoring the Victims' Rights Amendment, and I look forward to its adoption by this Congress. I think it is probably well known in this body that Senator Kyl and I have authored what is called the victim's rights constitutional amendment. One of the most perplexing things about the history of this amendment has been that everybody outside of this Chamber supports it. Governors support it. Attorneys general support it. Democratic candidates support it. Republican candidates support it. But when it came down to the fine discussion on this floor, we were told, well, it is too pedantic. Well, there are too many words--well, well. Senator Kyl and I have hunkered down. We have gone back to our constitutional experts on this side of the aisle: Professor Larry Tribe, who has been a very active participant in drafting this, and Steve Twist representing the victims, and many victims' organizations, as well as Paul Cassell, show has worked with us on this amendment. We have essentially redone the victims' rights constitutional amendment, really based on comments made on the floor. It is now succinct. It has a much more poetic flow to it. We believe it is an improved amendment. We are introducing it at this time because next week communities around the country will be holding observances, candlelight vigils, rallies, and other events to honor and support crime victims and their rights. In just a few days--specifically April 19--we will mark the seventh anniversary of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. That attack resulted in the deaths of some 168 people. I would like to very quickly read from a study that was conducted by the Department of Justice, the Office of Justice Programs, on this particular subject because I think their findings are significant. Let me read one of them. I quote: Nevertheless, serious deficiencies remain in the nation's victims' rights laws as well as their implementation. The Presiding Officer will remember when we passed two statutes to clarify victims' rights as a product of the Oklahoma City bombing. The judge ignored them. Then we passed another one. It went to the appellate court, and the appellate court found that the victims were without standing in the Constitution. Of course, that is what we are trying to remedy here. Thirty-two States have passed victims' rights State amendments. They are all different. Sometimes they are observed and sometimes they are not. Their report goes on to say: The rights of crime victims vary significantly among States and at the Federal level. Frequently, victims' rights are ignored. Even in States that have enacted constitutional rights for victims, implementation is often arbitrary and based on the individual practices and preferences of criminal justice officials. Moreover, many States do not provide comprehensive rights for victims of juvenile offenders. Let me go on to the recommendation of the Department of Justice. I quote: A Federal constitutional amendment for victims' rights is needed for many different reasons, including: One, to establish a consistent floor of rights for crime victims in every State and at the Federal level; two, to ensure the courts engage in a careful and conscientious balancing of the rights of victims and defendants; three, to guarantee crime victims the opportunity to participate in proceedings related to crimes against them; and, four, to enhance the participation of victims in the criminal justice process. A victims' rights constitutional amendment is the only legal measure strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in victims' rights laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the State and Federal level. I know Senator Kyl would like to address himself to this measure. His leadership has been unparalleled. It has been a great delight for me to work with him.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, National Crime Victims' Rights Week begins on Sunday. Next week, communities across the country will be holding observances, candlelight vigils, rallies, and other events to honor and support crime victims and their rights. Also, in just a few days--specifically, April 19--we will mark the 7th anniversary of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. That attack resulted in the deaths of 168 people. And it was just over seven months ago that, over a period of two hours and three minutes, we suffered the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in our history. Over 3,000 people died in the attacks on that day--more than died at Pearl Harbor. Thus, it seems appropriate for all of us in this esteemed body to stop a minute and think about victims' rights. Last year, the Senate debated a proposed constitutional amendment drafted by Senator Kyl and me to protect the rights of victims of violent crime. The amendment had been reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 12 to 5. After 82 Senators voted to proceed to consideration of the amendment, there was a vigorous debate on the floor of the Senate. Some Senators raised concerns about the amendment, saying that it was too long or that it read too much like a statute. Ultimately, in the face of a threatened filibuster, Senator Kyl and I decided to withdraw the amendment. We then hunkered down with constitutional experts such as Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School to see if we could revise the amendment to meet Senators' concerns. We also worked with constitutional experts at the Department of Justice and the White House. And we have come up with a new and improved draft of the amendment. This new amendment provides many of the same rights as the old amendment. Specifically, the amendment would give crime victims the rights to be notified, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their case. It would ensure that their views are considered and they are treated fairly. It would ensure that their interest in a speedy resolution of the case, safety, and claims for restitution are not ignored. And it would do so in a way that would not abridge the rights of defendants or offenders, or otherwise disrupt the delicate balance of our Constitution. There are many reasons why we need a constitutional amendment. First, a constitutional amendment will balance the scales of justice. Currently, while criminal defendants have almost two dozen separate constitutional rights--fifteen of them provided by amendments to the U.S. Constitution--there is not a single word in the Constitution about crime victims. These rights trump the statutory and state constitutional rights of crime victims because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. To level the playing field, crime victims need rights in the U.S. Constitution. In the event of a conflict between a victim's and a defendant's rights, the court will be able to balance those rights and determine which party has the most compelling argument. Second, a constitutional amendment will fix the patchwork of victims' rights laws. Eighteen states lack state constitutional victims' rights amendments. And the 32 existing state victims' rights amendments differ from each other. Also, virtually every state has statutory protections for victims, but these vary considerably across the country. Only a federal constitutional amendment can ensure a uniform national floor for victims' rights. Third, a constitutional amendment will restore rights that existed when the Constitution was written. It is a little know fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted, it was standard practice for victims--not public prosecutors-- to prosecute criminal cases. Because victims were parties to most criminal cases, they enjoyed the basic rights to notice, to be present, and be heard. Hence, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not mention victims. Now, of course, it is extremely rare for a victim to undertake a criminal prosecution. Thus, victims have none of the basic procedural rights they used to enjoy. Victims should receive some of the modest notice and participation rights they enjoyed at the time that the Constitution was drafted. Fourth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because mere state law is insufficient. State victims' rights laws lacking the force of federal constitutional law are often given short shrift. A Justice Department-sponsored study and other studies have found that, even in states with strong legal protections for victims; rights, many victims are denied those rights. The studies have also found that statutes are insufficient to guarantee victims' rights. Only a federal constitutional amendment can ensure that crime victims receive the rights they are due. Fifth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because federal statutory law is insufficient. The leading statutory alternative to the Victims' Rights Amendment would only directly cover certain violent crimes prosecuted in Federal court. Thus, it would slight more than 99 percent of victims of violent crime. We should acknowledge that Federal statutes have been tried and found wanting. It is time for us to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Oklahoma City bombing case offers another reason why we need a constitutional amendment. This case shows how even the strongest Federal statute is too weak to protect victims in the face of a defendant's constitutional rights. In that case, two Federal victims' statutes were not enough to give victims of the bombing a clear right to watch the trial and still testify at the sentencing--even though one of the statutes was passed with the specific purpose of allowing the victims to do just that. Let me quote from the first of these statutes: the Victims of Crime Bill of Rights, passed in 1990. That Bill of rights provides in part that: A crime victim has the following rights: The right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless the court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial. That statute further states that Federal Government officers and employees ``engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that victims of crime are accorded the[se] rights.'' The law also provides that ``[t]his section does not create a cause of action or defense in favor of any person arising out of the failure to accord to a victim the[se] rights.'' In spite of the law, the judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case ruled--without any request from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys--that no victim who saw any portion of the case could testify about the bombing's impact at a possible sentencing hearing: The Justice Department asked the judge to exempt victims who would not be ``factual witnesses at trial'' but who might testify at a sentencing hearing about the impact of the bombing on their lives. The judge denied the motion. The victims were then given until the lunchbreak to decide whether to watch the proceedings or remain eligible to testify at a sentencing hearing. In the hour that they had, some of the victims opted to watch the proceedings; others decided to leave to remain eligible to testify at the sentencing hearing. Subsequently, the Justice Department asked the court to reconsider its order in light of the 1990 Victims' Bill of Rights. Bombing victims then filed their own motion to raise their rights under the Victims' Bill of Rights. The court denied both motions. With regard to the victims' motion, the judge held that the victims lacked standing. The judge stated that the victims would not be able to separate the ``experience of trial'' from the ``experience of loss from the conduct in question.'' The judge also alluded to concerns about the defendants' constitutional rights, the common law, and rules of evidence. The victims and DOJ separately appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. That court ruled that the victims lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution because they had no ``legally protected interest'' to be present at trial and thus had suffered no ``injury in fact'' from their exclusion. The victims and DOJ then asked the entire Tenth Circuit to review that decision. Forty-nine members of Congress, all six attorneys general in the Tenth Circuit, and many of the leading crime victims' organizations filed briefs in support of the victims. All to no avail. The Victims' Clarification Act of 1997 was then introduced in Congress. That act provided that watching a trial does not constitute grounds for denying victims the chance to provide an impact statement. This bill passed the House 414 to 13 and the Senate by unanimous consent. Two days later, President Clinton signed it into law, explaining that ``when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.'' The victims then filed a motion asserting a right to attend the trial under the new law. However, the judge declined to apply the law as written. He concluded that ``any motions raising constitutional questions about this legislation would be premature and would present questions issues that are not now ripe for decision.'' Moreover, he held that it could address issues of possible prejudicial impact from attending the trial by interviewing the witnesses after the trial. The judge also refused to grant the victims a hearing on the application of the new law, concluding that his ruling rendered their request ``moot.'' The victims then faced a painful decision: watch the trial or preserve their right to testify at the sentencing hearing. Many victims gave up their right to watch the trial as a result. A constitutional amendment would help ensure that victims of a domestic terrorist attack such as the Oklahoma City bombing have standing and that their arguments for a right to be present are not dismissed as ``unripe.'' A constitutional amendment would give victims of violent crime an unambiguous right to watch a trial and still testify at sentencing. There is strong and wide support for a constitutional amendment. I am pleased that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have endorsed the amendment. I greatly appreciate their support. And I am also pleased that both former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore have all expressed support for a constitutional amendment on victims' rights. Moreover, in the last Congress, the Victims' Rights Amendment was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 41 Senators. I have spoken to many of my colleagues about the amendment we introduce today and I am hopeful that it will receive even more support in this Congress. In addition: Both the Democratic and Republican Party platforms call for a victims' rights amendment. Governors in 49 out of 50 states have called for an amendment. Four former U.S. Attorneys General, including Attorney General Reno, support an amendment. Attorney General Ashcroft supports an amendment. Forty state attorneys general support an amendment. Major national victims' rights groups--including Parents of Murdered Children, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, and the National Organization for Victim Assistance--support the amendment. Many law enforcement groups, including the Nation Troopers' Coalition, the International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, support an amendment. Constitutional scholars such as Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe support an amendment. The amendment has received strong support around the country. Thirty- two states have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of almost 80 percent. I am delighted to join my good friend Senator Jon Kyl in sponsoring the Victims' Rights Amendment, and I look forward to its adoption by this Congress. I think it is probably well known in this body that Senator Kyl and I have authored what is called the victim's rights constitutional amendment. One of the most perplexing things about the history of this amendment has been that everybody outside of this Chamber supports it. Governors support it. Attorneys general support it. Democratic candidates support it. Republican candidates support it. But when it came down to the fine discussion on this floor, we were told, well, it is too pedantic. Well, there are too many words--well, well. Senator Kyl and I have hunkered down. We have gone back to our constitutional experts on this side of the aisle: Professor Larry Tribe, who has been a very active participant in drafting this, and Steve Twist representing the victims, and many victims' organizations, as well as Paul Cassell, show has worked with us on this amendment. We have essentially redone the victims' rights constitutional amendment, really based on comments made on the floor. It is now succinct. It has a much more poetic flow to it. We believe it is an improved amendment. We are introducing it at this time because next week communities around the country will be holding observances, candlelight vigils, rallies, and other events to honor and support crime victims and their rights. In just a few days--specifically April 19--we will mark the seventh anniversary of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. That attack resulted in the deaths of some 168 people. I would like to very quickly read from a study that was conducted by the Department of Justice, the Office of Justice Programs, on this particular subject because I think their findings are significant. Let me read one of them. I quote: Nevertheless, serious deficiencies remain in the nation's victims' rights laws as well as their implementation. The Presiding Officer will remember when we passed two statutes to clarify victims' rights as a product of the Oklahoma City bombing. The judge ignored them. Then we passed another one. It went to the appellate court, and the appellate court found that the victims were without standing in the Constitution. Of course, that is what we are trying to remedy here. Thirty-two States have passed victims' rights State amendments. They are all different. Sometimes they are observed and sometimes they are not. Their report goes on to say: The rights of crime victims vary significantly among States and at the Federal level. Frequently, victims' rights are ignored. Even in States that have enacted constitutional rights for victims, implementation is often arbitrary and based on the individual practices and preferences of criminal justice officials. Moreover, many States do not provide comprehensive rights for victims of juvenile offenders. Let me go on to the recommendation of the Department of Justice. I quote: A Federal constitutional amendment for victims' rights is needed for many different reasons, including: One, to establish a consistent floor of rights for crime victims in every State and at the Federal level; two, to ensure the courts engage in a careful and conscientious balancing of the rights of victims and defendants; three, to guarantee crime victims the opportunity to participate in proceedings related to crimes against them; and, four, to enhance the participation of victims in the criminal justice process. A victims' rights constitutional amendment is the only legal measure strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in victims' rights laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the State and Federal level. I know Senator Kyl would like to address himself to this measure. His leadership has been unparalleled. It has been a great delight for me to work with him.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue. It is very clear to me we would not be where we are today had it not been for his leadership, both as a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and as the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, and as a 40-year member of this great body. I am very pleased to join with Senators Kennedy, Brownback, and Kyl in sponsoring the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001. This legislation, I think it is fair to say, represents a consensus. It draws upon the strength of both the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001, which I introduced with my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and the Enhanced Border Security Act of 2001, which Senators Kennedy and Brownback introduced. How did this happen? Senator Kyl and I, in the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee, held hearings and came upon many of the same things I think Senators Kennedy and Brownback did in the full Subcommittee on Immigration. In any event, the final result, as Senator Kennedy has said, garnered widespread support from both sides of the aisle. We now have a total of 61 cosponsors, and I think that is pretty much unprecedented for an immigration bill, particularly one of this magnitude. September 11 clearly pointed out the shortcomings of our immigration and naturalization system. For example, all 19 terrorists entered the United States legally. They had valid visas. Three of the hijackers had remained in the United States after their visas had expired. One entered on a foreign student visa. Another, Mohamed Atta, had filed an application to change status to M-1, which was granted in July. However, Mr. Atta sought permission and was admitted to the United States based on his then current B-1 visitor visa. On March 11, 6 months from the date of the attacks, 6 months after Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Immigration and Naturalization Service notified a Venice, FL, flight school that the two men had been approved for student visas. I think the sheer volume of travelers to our country each year illustrates the need for an efficiently run and technologically advanced immigration system. This is extraordinarily difficult if we just look at some of the numbers. I want the record to reflect some of these numbers. We have in our country between 8 and 9 million people who are residents without any legal status. They either entered illegally or they overstayed a temporary visa. Actually, 40 percent of the total were visa overstays. We had 30.1 million nonimmigrants entering the United States during the year 1998. That is the most recent year for which INS has statistics. As Senator Kennedy pointed out, 23 million of them entered as tourists on the visa waiver program. Nobody knows really whether they ever went home again. Six million of them were issued nonimmigrant visas as students, tourists, temporary workers, and other temporary visitors; 660,000 were foreign students who had entered in the fall of 2001. If that is not enough, we have about 500 million border crossings back and forth each year, combining Americans who cross the border with non-Americans who cross the border, and 350 million of the 500 million are non-Americans crossing the border. So if one talks about securing borders, our country is a giant sieve. This sieve is virtually our strength in times of peace, and at times of war it is our greatest insecurity. Of these 666,000 foreign nationals who held student visas in 2001, more than 10,000 enrolled in flight training, in trade schools, in other nonacademic programs, and more than 16,000 came from terrorist- supporting countries. Senator Kennedy pointed out--my numbers are 2,000 different from his--that we have some 74,000 U.S. schools that are allowed to admit foreign students, but checks of the schools on the current INS list found that some had closed. Yet students still come in. Others have never existed; therefore, they were fraudulent schools set up clearly to bring in people on student visas. Exactly 6 months after the 9-11 attacks, as I pointed out, Huffman Aviation received student visa approval forms for Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi. There is a big problem out there, and I think the sheer volume of travelers to our country each year points out eloquently the problems we face. This is one of the reasons why we have to change a paper-driven agency into a much more active agency, with better management, with more technologically modern tools, and I think knowing what we now know to secure our borders. It is visa entries, change the processes, and improve the border. This bill aims to do that. I will talk for a moment about the visa waiver program. I mentioned visa waivers: Some 23 million people, from 29 different countries. I mentioned nobody knows where they go in the United States or whether they leave once their visas expire. The INS estimates over 100,000 blank passports have been stolen from government offices in participating countries in recent years. Why would 100,000 passports be stolen? The answer is, to use them fraudulently. Abuse of the visa waiver program poses threats to U.S. national security. It also increases illegal immigration. For example, one of the co-conspirators in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 deliberately chose to use a fraudulent Swedish passport to attempt entry into the United States because of Sweden's participation in the visa waiver program. That clearly says we have to change the program. What we do in this bill is mandate all these passports must be machine readable, so they can be read when the individual enters the country, they can be read when the individual leaves the country, and also the information can be provided to know what these people are going to do while they are in the country. Let me talk about the foreign student visa program. I mentioned that more than 500,000 foreign nationals enter each year. Within the last 10 years, 16,000 came from such terrorist-supporting States as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, and Syria. The foreign student visa system is one of the most underregulated systems we have today. We have seen bribes, bureaucracy, and other problems with this system that leave it wide open to abuse by terrorists and other criminals. For example, in the early 1990s, 5 officials at 4 California colleges were convicted in Federal court of taking bribes, providing counterfeit education documents, and fraudulently applying for more than 100 foreign student visas. It is unclear what steps the INS took to find and deport the foreign nationals involved in this scheme, even after these five officials were convicted. Each year, we have 300 million border crossings. For the most part, these individuals are legitimate visitors in our country, but we have no way of tracking all of these visitors. Mohamed Atta, the suspected ring leader in the attack, was admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor in July 2001. He traveled frequently to and from the United States during the past 2 years. According to the INS, he was in legal status the day of the attack. Other hijackers also traveled with ease throughout the country. It has become all too clear that without an adequate tracking system, our country becomes the sieve that it is today. That creates ample opportunities for terrorists to enter and establish their operations without detection. I sit as chair of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information. Last October, the subcommittee held a hearing to explore the need for new technologies to assist our Government agencies in keeping terrorists out of the United States. The testimony at that hearing was very illuminating. We were given a picture of an immigration system in chaos and a border control system rife with vulnerabilities. Agency officials don't communicate with each other, computers are incompatible, and even in instances where technological leaps have been made, as in the issuance of 4.5 million smart border crossing cards with biometric data, the technology is not even used because the laser readers have never been purchased and installed. It is astonishing that a person can apply for a visa and be granted a visa by the State Department and there is no mechanism by which the FBI or the CIA can raise a red flag with regard to the individual if he or she is known to have links to a terrorist group or otherwise pose a threat to national security. In the aftermath of September 11, it is unconscionable that a terrorist might be permitted to enter the United States simply because our Government agencies don't share information. We heard testimony from the head person of the State Department in the consular division. She testified that they feel terrible because they granted these visas. They granted them from abroad. But they had no information on the individuals, no reason at the time to deny the visas. We have discovered since then the perpetrators of these attacks clearly had a certain confidence that our immigration laws could be circumvented either because the law itself was not adequate to protect us or the enforcement of existing law is too lax. It almost seemed effortless the way the terrorists got into this country. They did not have to slip into the country as stowaways on sea vessels or sneak through the borders evading Federal authorities. Most, if not all, appeared to have come in with temporary visas, which are routinely granted to tourists, to students, and to other short-term visitors to our country. This brings me to why the provisions we have cosponsored are so important and should be enacted without further delay. Right now, our Government agencies use different systems with different information and different formats. They often refuse to share that information with other agencies within our Government. This clearly, in view of September 11, is no longer acceptable. When a tourist presents himself or herself at a consular office asking for a visa or at a border crossing with a passport, we need to make sure his or her name and identifying information are checked against an accurate, up to date and comprehensive database. Under the pending legislation, the administration would be required to develop and implement an interoperable law enforcement and intelligence data system which would provide the INS and the State Department immediate access to relevant law enforcement and intelligence information. The database would be accessible to foreign service officers issuing visas, to Federal agents determining the admissibility of aliens to the United States, and law enforcement officers investigating and identifying aliens. In addition, the interoperable data system would include sophisticated, linguistically based, name-matching algorithms so that the computers can recognize that, for example, Muhamad Usam Abdel Raqeeb and Haj Mohd Othman Abdul Rejeeb are transliterations of the same name. In other words, this provision would require agencies to ensure that names can be matched even when they are stored in different sets of fields in different databases. Incidentally, this legislation also contains strict privacy provisions limiting access to this database to authorized Federal officials only. The bill contains severe penalties for wrongful access or misuse of information contained in the databases. I wish to address one other problem. Some people say if you give the date that is in the legislation, it is too soon, they cannot approve it. I don't believe that. We have been after them for years to do things like this, and I believe, after talking with several people from the private sector, that the private sector can come in and provide the software very quickly for the kinds of databases we are discussing. They have assured me this is possible. I think one of the problems we have is we don't employ the experts in the private sector we have--the technologically hypersensitive people who know the most modern technology and how to apply software, how to get the system up and running, how to get the data entered, and then stay with the system. I remember when I was mayor of San Francisco when we did the first latent fingerprint database in the United States. NEC did it for us. NEC sent their people to San Francisco to install the system and to establish the software. They remained for 5 years to see that the programming was done adequately. This was done on a request for proposal of bid from the private sector. I believe very strongly, if we are going to ever get this section of the bill properly instituted, that not only does the private sector have to come in, but they have to stay for substantial periods of time--at least 5 years--to supervise the data entry as that data is put in, as the databases are checked, as they are revised. I think that is critical to a system. I mentioned briefly the Visa Waiver Program. With 123 million people and 29 different countries, we would require tamper-resistant, machine- readable biometric passports. Each country participating in the visa waiver program would issue tamper-resistant, machine-readable biometric passports to its nationals by 2003. This must happen. No excuse should be tolerated. If they cannot meet it, they should be dropped out of the program. Prior to admitting a foreign visitor from a visa waiver country, the INS inspector must first determine that the individual does not appear in any lookout database. As a condition of a country's continued participation in the visa waiver program, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State must consider whether that country keeps the United States apprised of the theft of blank passports. One-hundred thousand of them have been stolen. Again, why? Fraud. This is important because terrorist organizations have made use of stolen or counterfeit passports from countries participating in the visa waiver program. The INS would be required to enter stolen or lost passport numbers into the interpretable visa data system within 72 hours of notification of loss or theft. Until that system is established, the INS must enter that information into an existing data system. So when they come through on the visa waiver program with a stolen passport, that number is hot. That number pops up. Whoever is waving them through knows it. We know the September attacks were connected with al-Qaeda, which has links in some 60 to 70 countries around the world. It has, in fact, established bases in visa waiver countries such as Albania, Belgium, Bosnia, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Al-Qaeda cells exist in these countries. Stolen passports become available. They come in, and no one knows what happened after that time. Clearly, we cannot allow this program to become a passageway for terrorists into our country. We also have new requirements for passenger manifests. All commercial flights and vessels coming to the United States from international ports must provide manifest information about each passenger, crew member, and other occupants prior to the arrival of that flight or that vessel. That is critical to closing some of these loopholes. The manifest has to get to the INS prior to the arrival of the ship or the plane. I have checked with airlines as to whether this can be done and whether it is practical. The answer is yes. In addition, each vessel or aircraft departing from the United States for any destination outside of the United States must provide manifest information before departure. By 2003, the manifest must be transmitted electronically. The Attorney General would be authorized to extend manifest requirements to any public or private carrier transporting persons to or from the United States. The Attorney General may impose a fine on carriers that fail to provide manifest information or those who provide inaccurate, incomplete, or false information. This section of the bill also eliminates the 45-minute deadline to clear arriving passengers which now exist in law. This legislation also includes other concrete steps to restore integrity to the immigration and visa process, including the following new travel document requirements. The bill would require all visa, passports, and other travel documents to be fraud and tamper resistant and contain biometric data by October 26, 2003. The legislation would also require all foreign nationals to be fingerprinted, and when appropriate submit other biometric data to the State Department when applying for a visa. That is reasonable. It has to be done. This provision should help to eliminate fraud as well as identify potential threats to the country before they gain access. There is a provision on nonimmigrants from certain countries. The bill would prohibit the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to nationals from countries designated as state-sponsored international terrorism, unless the Secretary of State, after consulting with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate agencies, determines that the individual poses no safety or security threat to the United States. Student visa reforms: We worked closely with the university community in crafting new strict requirements for the student visa program to crack down on fraud--to make sure that students really are attending classes, and to give the Government the ability to track any foreign national who arrives on a student visa but fails to enroll in school. Prior to 9-11, I think it is fair to say that the American academic community didn't really want to have this responsibility. After 9-11, to some extent, they still didn't. That is when I came forward with perhaps a moratorium on the student visa program. Then they came in and agreed to assume additional responsibility. I am very grateful to the university associations for their leadership in this matter. I know it is additional work for schools. But I also think if the schools receive the tuition, and if the schools receive the individuals, there has to be a private sector sharing of this responsibility as well. That is just, and that it is appropriate. I believe the university community now agrees with this. I am very grateful to them for their cooperation. The legislation also reforms the student visa process by doing the following: It would require the Attorney General to notify schools of the student's date of entry and require the schools to notify--this is important--the INS if a student has not reported to school within 30 days of the beginning of an academic term. The monitoring program does not preselect such information as the student's date of entry, the port of entry, the date of school enrollment, the date the student leaves the school, graduates, or quits the degree program or field of study. That, and other significant information, will now be collected. I think it is important. I do not believe the people of my State or the people of America want us to give advanced nuclear training to those who would conduct a nuclear program and use that program against us. We know we have trained the head of the Iraqi nuclear program. We know we have given a higher education to the head of the Islamic Jihad. I do not think our people want us to do that. I, as one Member of this Senate, really rebel against that kind of thing. I don't want to train people who will create enormous danger to all of our citizens. I think we can't entirely avoid it, but we can have those systems in place that guard against it. We at present do not. We would also require the INS, in consultation with the State Department, to monitor the various steps involved in admitting foreign students and to notify the school of the student's entry. This does not presently happen. It would also require the school to notify INS if a student has not reported for school no more than 30 days after the deadline for registering for classes. So if you are supposed to register and you do not register for 30 days, right now the INS doesn't know that. You can be long gone. They do not know it. This would be the school's responsibility. The schools are prepared to accept that responsibility. We would also mandate the INS to conduct a periodic review of educational institutions to monitor their compliance with recordkeeping and reporting requirements. If an institution or program fails to comply, their authorization to accept foreign students may be revoked. While the INS currently reviews educational institutions, reviews have not been done consistently in recent years, and some schools are not diligent in their recordkeeping and reporting responsibilities. As to more border personnel, this section authorizes an increase of at least 1,000 INS inspectors. If you were there--and I believe you were, Madam President, this morning at our hearing--you heard the immigration specialist say how very important the INS inspector is; how overburdened--and underpaid, I would add--they are. This bill would change both of those. It would add 1,000 INS investigative personnel, 1,000 Customs Service inspectors, and additional associated support staff in each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, to be employed at either the northern or southern border. As to better INS pay and staffing, to help INS retain Border Patrol officers and inspectors, this section would raise their pay grade and permit the hiring of additional support staff. As to enhanced Border Patrol and Customs training to enhance our ability to identify and intercept would-be terrorists at the border, funds are provided for the regular training of Border Patrol, Customs agents, and INS inspectors. In addition, funds are provided to agencies staffing U.S. ports of entry for continuing cross-training, to fully train inspectors in using lookout databases and monitoring passenger traffic patterns, and to expand the carrier consultant program. As to better State Department information and training, this section authorizes funding to improve the security features of the Department of State screening of visa applicants. Improved security features include better coordination of international intelligence information, additional staff, and continuous ongoing training of consular officers. The bill contains a number of other related provisions as well, but the gist of this legislation is this: Where we can provide law enforcement more information about potentially dangerous foreign nationals, we do so. Where we can reform our border crossing system to weed out and deter terrorists and others who would do us harm, we do so. And where we can update technology to meet the demands of modern war against terror, we do that as well. As we prepare to modify our immigration system, we must be sure to enact changes that are realistic and feasible. We must also provide the necessary tools to implement them, and the money to pay for it all. I think Senator Byrd was eloquent this morning in expressing that. We have a lot to do, but I am confident that we will move swiftly to address these important issues. The legislation Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Kyl, and I crafted is an important and strong first step, but this is only the beginning of a long and difficult process because our entire intent, our body language, our laws, our philosophy, has been to have a very liberal, open border. Now we cannot afford to do that. Madam President, I would like to respond to any concern anyone might have that this bill is anti-immigrant. We are a nation of immigrants. The United States takes more immigrants legally each year than all of the other industrialized nations on Earth put together. So we are a nation of immigrants. We recognize it; we respect it. It is what the Statue of Liberty stands for. And we have followed it. The overwhelming percentage of people who come to live in this country do so to enjoy the blessings of liberty, equality, and opportunity. The overwhelming percentage of the people who visit this country mean us no harm, but there are several thousand innocent people, including foreign nationals, who were killed on September 11-- in part because a network of fanatics determined to wreak death, destruction, and terror. They exploited the weaknesses of our immigration system to come here, to stay here, to study here, and to kill here. We learned at Oklahoma City that not all terrorists are foreign nationals. But the world is a dangerous place and the world is peopled with regimes that would destroy us if they had a chance. We are all casualties of September 11. Our society has necessarily changed as our perception of the threats we face has changed. The blinders have fallen from our eyes. Clearly, we need to address the vulnerabilities in our immigration system that September 11 painfully revealed. O, that we had done it after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. When one of the bombers was being moved after 9-11, he said to the FBI agent moving him: If I only had the money and explosives, I could have done what was done on September 11, in 1993. The changes we need to make in our system will inconvenience people. Let there be no doubt. Once implemented, however, those changes will make it easier for law-abiding foreign visitors either to visit or to study here, and for law-abiding immigrants who want to live here to do so. More importantly, once they are here, their safety--and our safety--will be greatly enhanced. We must do everything we can to deter the terrorists, here and abroad, who would do us harm. From the Pentagon to downtown Manhattan, we have learned just how high the stakes are. It would dishonor the innocent victims of September 11 and the brave men and women in our Armed Forces who are defending our liberty at this very instant if we failed in this effort. So it is extraordinarily important that we enact the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. I urge the bipartisan leadership of the Senate to join with us in gaining final passage of this important legislation. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl for those remarks. One of the great treats of my tenure in the Senate, I guess now 9\1/2\ years, has been to work with him. I do not think we have ever had a cross word between us. It has been a wonderful working relationship. I am very grateful for it. When we can work across the aisle the way we have worked, we can be much more productive. So I thank the Senator from Arizona for his work. He is a great ranking member. He was a great chairman of the committee. I have enjoyed it thoroughly. I thank him for his work on this bill. I also thank his staff. I wish to comment about my staff also. She is LaVita Strickland sitting to my right. She is a Judiciary counsel. She is very mild mannered, but she has been very tenacious in the pursuit of the consideration of this bill and has become very forceful. LaVita is enormously talented. I am very proud of her. I thank her for many hours of hard work. I think we have a good product. Thank you very much, LaVita. I see the Senator from Kansas, the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, has come to the Chamber. I wish to turn this over to him and also thank him for his cooperation. Senator Kyl and I sat down with Senators Kennedy and Brownback and had some good discussions and were able to put this together. Our respective staffs followed up. I am very grateful to him for his cooperation and leadership as well. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I would also like the Record to reflect the following: In fiscal year 1999, the Department of State identified 291 potential nonimmigrants as inadmissible for security or terrorist concerns. Of that number, 101 aliens seeking nonimmigrant visas were specifically identified for terrorist activities, but 35 of them were able to overcome the ineligibility. Including the 19 September 11 hijackers, 47 foreign-born individuals have been charged, pled guilty, or been convicted of involvement in terrorism on U.S. soil in the last 10 years. Of the 47 terrorists, at least 13 had overstayed a temporary visa at some point prior to taking part in terrorist activity, including September 11 ring leader Mohamed Atta. Therefore, tracking visa overstays is a very important part of what we are trying to do. One other fact: Some reports indicate that Khalid Al Midhar, who probably flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, was identified as a terrorist by the CIA in January 2001, but his name was not given to the watch list until August 2001. Unfortunately, he had already reentered the United States in July 2001. I should point out that there is some debate about exactly when the CIA identified him as a terrorist. But if it really did take the CIA several months to put his name on the list, as PBS's ``Frontline'' has reported, then that is a serious problem because we might have stopped him from entering the country had they shared this information sooner. This, of course, speaks to the issue of sharing information between Federal agencies. Let me just add some information on absconders and detainees. In December 2001, INS estimated that 314,000 foreigners who have been ordered deported are at large. More recent estimates, released in March 2002, suggest there may be at least 425,000 such absconders. At least 6,000 were identified as coming from countries considered al-Qaeda strongholds. In a report released in February 2002, the U.S. General Accounting Office said that antifraud efforts at the INS are ``fragmented and unfocused'' and that enforcement of immigration law remains a low priority--that enforcement of immigration law remains a low priority. The report found that the agency had only 40 jobs for detecting fraud in 4 million applications for immigrant benefits in the year 2000. I think that is a clear indication that the additional personnel provided for in this bill are truly necessary. Since there is no one else on the floor at the present time, I would like to also put in the Record some border agency statistics. There are 1,800 inspectors at ports of entry along the U.S. borders. The Customs Service has 3,000 inspectors to check the 1.4 million people and 360,000 vehicles that cross the border daily--1.4 million people and 360,000 vehicles daily. The 2,000-mile-long Mexican border has 33 ports of entry and 9,106 Border Patrol agents to guard them. In October 2001, there were 334 Border Patrol agents assigned to the nearly 4,000-mile-long northern border between the United States and Canada. This number of agents clearly cannot cover all shifts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, leaving some sections of the border open without coverage. The Office of the Inspector General found that one northern border sector had identified 65 smuggling corridors along the 300 miles of border within its area of responsibility. INS intelligence officers have admitted that criminals along the northern border monitor the Border Patrol's radio communications and observe their actions. This enables them to know the times when the fewest agents are on duty and to plan illegal actions accordingly. The primary tool available to INS inspectors during the inspections process is the Interagency Border Inspection System, known as IBIS, which allows INS inspectors to search a variety of databases containing records and lookouts of individuals of particular concern to the United States. A 1999 Office of the Inspector General report found, however, that INS inspectors at U.S. ports of entry were not consistently checking passport numbers with IBIS. INS officers also failed to enter lost or stolen passports from visa waiver countries into IBIS in a timely, accurate, or consistent manner. One senior INS official from Miami International Airport told the OIG that he was not even aware of any INS policy that required the entry of stolen passport numbers. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Madam President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from a number of other organizations: the American Council on International Personnel; the Alliance for International Education and Cultural Exchange; Americans for Better Borders; and the host of agencies that are reflected by the Family of September 11th Victims; and by the Association of International Educators; and the University of California as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I note the distinguished Senator from Arizona has come to the Chamber. He is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Technology and Terrorism and has been the driving force behind this legislation. I thank him for all his help. It has been a long road, but we are almost there, we hope. I know he wants to make some remarks at this time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I know Senators Brownback, Kyl, and Dorgan will come to the Chamber shortly to speak. In the interim before they appear, I wanted to just make a couple of budget points, at least as I understand them. The committee, I believe the Appropriations Committee as well, has the INS-anticipated budget numbers--Senator Kennedy referred to them-- that the total cost to implement the bill, according to the INS, is $3,132,307,000. The amount of the first year's cost is $1.187 billion. There is $743 million additional in the President's budget, which leaves a net deficit of $187,959,000. Of the $40 billion we appropriated after the 9-11 attacks, $20 billion to New York City and $20 billion for discretionary funding, it is my understanding the administration has allocated all but $327 million of that $10 billion. I don't know whether that money is available to be put into this program. We certainly will look and determine that. I agree with those in the Senate who believe homeland defense is extraordinarily important; that this asymmetrical warfare we are engaged in is going to last a substantial period of time, perhaps a decade or more; and that when we took this oath of office, we ought not only uphold the Constitution but also protect and defend our people. Therefore, if we are really to carry this out, this becomes a very high priority item. I am hopeful the money will be appropriated. I believe it will. There is now a commitment on both sides of the aisle to do so. It is going to take much more money than we even recognize at the present time, but I believe the American people want us to do that. Therefore, we certainly should. I don't see any of the other Senators in the Chamber at this time. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter by Bruce Josten on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supporting the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his comments. I thought they were excellent. I appreciate him naming every State that will have an effective gas tax, and stating that this methanol mandate is a tax hike anyway one looks at it. I do not think there is any doubt there is going to be an increase in gas prices. I do not doubt them at all. I also appreciate his concern for farmers. I come from a State that is the largest farming State in the Union. I have spent time in the central valley of California. I know what farmers go through, and I appreciate it. I am also faced with the problem in my State of forcing a tax hike for something that we do not need to meet clean air standards, which has questions about its environmental value as well as its real questions about what it might do to the public health, that prevents anybody's right to sue if there is a real hazard that comes about. This, to me, is unbelievable. I will take a couple of moments on the subject of what ethanol does in gasoline. I mentioned in my remarks that ethanol is also fundamentally different from MTBE because the two oxygenated additives react differently when mixed with gasoline. I think this is an important point because this is not going to help the energy shortage. It is going to exacerbate it. The same amount of ethanol, as opposed to MTBE, actually contracts fuel so it takes more to produce the same amount of gasoline. The report, sponsored by the California Energy Commission, predicts replacement of MTBE by ethanol will result in a supply shortfall of 5 to 10 percent for the California gasoline pool as a whole. Thus, California's gasoline supply is not going to go as far as it did. That is critical because we are at 98 percent of refining capacity. So I do not know how we meet the need without a huge price spike that will result from a shortage of gasoline, and that is why I think for my State this mandate actually produces a very egregious gas spike. It also can impact refineries very critically. So what I have tried to point out today is that essentially this mandate triples the amount of ethanol from 1.7 billion gallons used nationally today to 5 billion gallons nationally by 2012. Secondly, because of the way the credit situation is set up, one pays whether they use it or not. Thirdly, what it does to gas prices. Fourthly, the market concentration of ethanol: 41 percent from one company, 71 percent from eight companies. That in itself creates a problem that if there is a shortfall the price can be manipulated. I have mentioned the environmental problems, that we can anticipate the smell in the summer months will get worse, not better, because of the use of ethanol. I also indicated that essentially over the 9 years everybody should know that this is a $7 billion cut in the highway trust fund. There is another point I would like to make. The ethanol mandate essentially helps the producer. Only 30 percent goes to the farmers, and about 70 percent goes to producers. This is a windfall for those companies, any way you look at it. The New York Times ran an editorial pointing this out, mentioning that an energy economist estimated 30 percent of the cost will end up in the pockets of farmers, while about 70 percent will go to the processors, such as ADM. This mandate is a ridiculously expensive way to subsidize farmers. Additionally, it cuts imports by about only 9,000 barrels, of about 8 million barrels. So no one can say this saves a great deal of our energy requirements related to fuel. I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This is modest and delays the implementation of the ethanol mandate by a year, eliminating a requirement to use 2.3 million gallons of ethanol in 2004 and will give States more time to make essential infrastructure, refinery, and storage improvements. This is an essential modification since virtually all ethanol, as has been explained, comes by tank--not pipeline--from the Midwest. Although the ethanol industry says they can meet the future demand, virtually every single expert we have talked with has said delivery interruptions and shortfalls are likely, if not inevitable. I ask I be included as a cosponsor of the amendment of Senator Schumer to strike the renewable fuels section of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.