Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada appeared on the floor and said similar words a year ago. I never expected he would come back a second time and do that again. I had his words printed up and gave a copy to my chairman and put one copy in my memory book. What should not be so rare, but I guess is rare, is the fact that women can do this work, women can participate in the great public policy debates of our day, women can work together, they can be effective and I think the fact that that is now becoming the given is important. The message Senator Reid sent to young women who may be out there saying, could I do this job some day, is absolutely, yes, if they get an education. The old proverbial myths that women cannot work together or women are jealous or women are this or women are that are not true. We are living examples of this, both Republican and Democratic women in the Senate. It is one of the great treats of our service that we are able to share, develop collegiality, be real professionals, and care about the people we represent. It is a great pleasure for me to hear and see the Senator from Nevada saying these things, and also, as I said before, to be able to work with Senator Hutchison. We have become good friends in the process. We do not always agree, but that does not matter. The point is there is a basic integrity and a commitment to do the right thing for the people we represent and the people in the military. So I thank Senator Reid and my thanks to my chairman. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my chairman, Senator Hutchison, in recommending the 2005 Military Construction appropriations bill to the Senate. I thank her because it has been quite wonderful for me to work with her over the years. We have exchanged positions, ranking and chairman, on this subcommittee. I think we have always worked in a collegial and very productive way. Her leadership has been outstanding and I, for one, am very grateful. I also thank Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for their leadership and assistance in guiding this bill through committee and to the floor. America's men and women in uniform need all the support we can give them, so expeditious consideration of defense bills, such as this one, sends an important signal of support to our troops. I know both Senator Hutchison and I want to send that signal. The President's budget request for MilCon was $9.55 billion. That was only 2.5 percent over last year's enacted level. But with the support of Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye, the committee was able to add another $450 million to meet the urgent construction needs of our active and reserve military bases. As Senator Hutchison indicated, one issue that dominated discussion in the 2005 Military Construction program is the question of how to rescue the military family housing privatization initiative from running out of budget authority. I agree very much with my chairman. By accelerating the pace at which new family housing can be provided, the program has had a tremendous impact on the quality of life for thousands of military families. The question is, what do we do now? This year, the subcommittee was faced with that dilemma because we will shortly be out of money. So as the chairman said, we hope the authorizing committee--the Budget Committee as well as the Armed Services Committee--can find a solution to this problem by the time this bill is in conference. Again this year, the subcommittee was faced with a still evolving proposal for realigning our overseas military force structure. I want to take a couple of minutes to discuss it because I think it is important. Last year, the Defense Department unveiled a preliminary plan for a major restructuring of forces in Europe and Korea, a plan that has now evolved into a wide-ranging global rebasing plan. The President publicly announced the plan last month, noting that 60,000 to 70,000 troops currently stationed overseas would return home over the next decade. Unfortunately, the administration offered few other details about the plan, and it appears some key basing decisions remain unresolved. This year's budget request included more than $700 million for overseas military construction. The planning and rebuilding of military facilities is a complicated process, constrained by long lead times, and the lack of a fully developed basing plan by the Department of Defense has hampered the subcommittee's ability to make prudent and informed decisions about overseas military construction. For this reason, several proposed overseas construction projects were deleted from the Senate bill pending a clearer understanding of how they might be affected by the global basing plan. It is clear the Department is continuing to fine-tune and adjust its global realignment plan. Although the President has announced plans to realign and significantly reduce the number of U.S. troops stationed overseas, the committee has received no requests from the Defense Department that would support moving forces back to the United States; nor has the Defense Department provided Congress with any cost estimate or timetable for its global restructuring plan. It is said that ``the devil is in the details'' and we do need those details. Only when the Defense Department provides Congress with a comprehensive, well- reasoned plan will the committee have a sufficient understanding of the associated military construction requirements to proceed with confidence. Until the Defense Department completes its overseas basing review and presents a plan to Congress, projects supporting activities that may be subject to further change should remain on hold. I think we are both in agreement on that. The Overseas Basing Commission that Senator Hutchison led, and I supported, was established last year. That, we hope, will provide some valuable insights for Congress regarding this process. We have given this matter great consideration, and I commend Senator Hutchison for laying out the position of the subcommittee so clearly and completely in the report accompanying our bill. I very much agree with that. I thank Chairman Hutchison and the members of the Appropriations staff, Dennis Ward and Sean Knowles, for their hard work on this bill. I also thank my Appropriations staff, Christina Evans and B. G. Wright, sitting to my left, and my personal staff, Michael Schiffer and Chris Thompson, who does our appropriations, for their contributions. The work of the Military Construction Subcommittee enhances our Nation's efforts to build quality facilities for our military men and women, and I urge my colleagues to approve this bill. Mr. President, I want the chairman to know that at the appropriate time, I would like to enter into a colloquy between Senator Nelson and myself, to which the chairman has agreed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe I can yield back the remainder of our time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, before I yield back the remainder of my time, I would like to thank the Senator from Delaware for his comments. The control tower at Dover Air Force Base, which is I think about a $9 million appropriation, was on their ask list in 2004. Unfortunately, we could not do it, so we made it a high priority this year. I know both Senator Hutchison and I were really pleased to be able to do it. It is very nice for the Senator from Delaware to come to the floor to say thank you. Very few do that. It is appreciated. I thank the Senator very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Certainly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. There is one, and I would like to yield a few minutes to the Senator from Delaware, if I may, Senator Carper.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets: Social Security Numbers. The bill I propose today is identical to legislation that is making progress in the House of Representatives. Just before recess, the House Ways and Means Committee passed the bill not only with bipartisan support, but with unanimous support. Even though this bill has differences from S. 228, which I proposed at the beginning of this Congress to help prevent the misuse of Social Security numbers, the issue is too important for me, or for any other Senator, to stand by and do nothing. The legislation, which in the House is H.R. 2971, was authored by Representative Clay Shaw, the Republican from Florida's 22nd Congressional District. Very briefly, the key provisions of the legislation will do the following: It will generally prohibit the Federal and State governments, and private businesses, from displaying, buying, and selling Social Security Numbers. However, realizing that there are certain instances where Social Security Numbers must be communicated, the bill makes exceptions for areas such as law enforcement, national security, vehicle registration, and certain limited forms of research. The bill will also toughen the methods that the Social Security Administration uses to verify birth records, and that it uses to issue Social Security numbers to newborn infants. Additionally, the legislation will prohibit companies from requiring consumers to provide their Social Security Numbers, and will treat any such requirement as a prohibited unfair trade practice. The bill will also punish violators with fines and up to five years in prison, with up to 25 years for those who are involved in drug trafficking or terrorism. The bill also allows other sections of Federal law to impose stronger restrictions, and calls for reports analyzing the process for issuing Social Security Numbers. This legislation is necessary to help stop the epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and its citizens. According to a report that the Federal Trade Commission released in September, 2003, almost ten million people were victimized by identity theft in the previous year. This led to losses of over 47 billion dollars. The damage is not merely monetary. According to the same FTC report, the average victim had to spend thirty hours that is, three-fourths of a standard work-week--to resolve the problems. Often, the entire process can drag out for years. Perhaps worst of all, victims must confront the trauma that someone else has hijacked their very identity. According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, a non-profit group that operates in my home state of California: ``Each time you answer the telephone or go to the mailbox, you wonder what new bill will appear. The idea of dealing with yet another collection agency or a newly discovered credit card leaves you filled with dread, rage and helplessness. . . . Some feel like they are experiencing a form of `post-traumatic stress disorder' for a short time.'' Theft of a Social Security number can be especially devastating, because that piece of information has become a de facto universal identifier in American society. One recent book on privacy in the United States documents how far the use of Social Security Numbers has spread beyond its original purpose, when they were created in 1936, of tracking American workers' earnings and benefits. According to the book: ``The SSN began to be used for military personnel, legally admitted aliens, anyone receiving or applying for federal benefits, food stamps, school lunch program eligibility, draft registration, and federal loans. State and local governments, as well as private sector entities such as schools and banks, began to use SSNs as well--for drivers' licenses, birth certificates, blood donation, jury selection, worker's compensation, occupational licenses, and marriage licenses. `` (SOURCE: Daniel Solove and Marc Rotenberg, Information Privacy Law, Aspen Publishers, 2003, at page 447-48.) Despite this widespread use of Social Security Numbers, according to the General Accounting Office, ``No single federal law regulates the overall use or restricts the disclosure of SSNs by governments.'' (SOURCE: Social Security Numbers: SSNs are Widely Used by Government and Could be Better Protected, 2002 (Report Number GAO-02-691T) at page 5). As a result, the use of Social Security Numbers is regulated by an inconsistent and insufficient patchwork of State and Federal laws, that often leaves the numbers in plain view of the whole world. It isn't surprising, then, that the sale of Social Security Numbers is proceeding at a furious pace. According to the GAO in a report that it released earlier this year, ``Internet-based information resellers whose Web sites we accessed also obtain SSNs from their customers and scour public records and other publicly available information to provide the information to persons willing to pay a fee.'' (SOUCE: Social Security Numbers: Private Sector Entities Routinely Obtain and Use SSNs, and Laws Limit the Disclosure of this Information (2004, Report Number GAO-04-11), on Highlights Page). I personally first became aware of the need for a law to restrict the sale and display of Social Security numbers about eight years ago, when one of my staff members sat me down and downloaded my own Social Security Number from the Internet in a matter of minutes. Congress has done shockingly little to protect Social Security Numbers since then. Therefore, we badly need a uniform law such as the one that the GAO report anticipates. Year after year, I have advocated and proposed such legislation that would restrict the public display and use of Social Security Numbers. In the 106th Congress, I introduced S. 2966. In the 107th Congress, I introduced, S. 848 and S. 3100. In the 108th Congress, I introduced S. 228. None of these bills moved. Today, I stand before you yet again, to introduce a fifth bill to take steps that will make it more difficult for thieves to steal this precious resource. This is not a partisan issue--all of the bills that I introduced in the past were bipartisan. And so is this bill: in the House, as I mentioned, it was passed unanimously in the Ways and Means Committee, and also has 41 co- sponsors, including 16 Republicans and 25 Democrats. This issue does not concern Republican government or Democratic government; rather, this is an issue of good government. Earlier this year, the President signed into law a bill that I helped to author, to increase punishment for those who steal the identities of others. But punishment is not enough. We need to stop identity theft from occurring in the first place. We have only three weeks until the end of this Congress to enact this legislation to prevent such thefts by protecting Social Security Numbers. If we do not pass this legislation now, we will have to wait yet again to give basic protection to information that should have been under lock and key long ago. It is time for us to act. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent, the text of the accompanying bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets: Social Security Numbers. The bill I propose today is identical to legislation that is making progress in the House of Representatives. Just before recess, the House Ways and Means Committee passed the bill not only with bipartisan support, but with unanimous support. Even though this bill has differences from S. 228, which I proposed at the beginning of this Congress to help prevent the misuse of Social Security numbers, the issue is too important for me, or for any other Senator, to stand by and do nothing. The legislation, which in the House is H.R. 2971, was authored by Representative Clay Shaw, the Republican from Florida's 22nd Congressional District. Very briefly, the key provisions of the legislation will do the following: It will generally prohibit the Federal and State governments, and private businesses, from displaying, buying, and selling Social Security Numbers. However, realizing that there are certain instances where Social Security Numbers must be communicated, the bill makes exceptions for areas such as law enforcement, national security, vehicle registration, and certain limited forms of research. The bill will also toughen the methods that the Social Security Administration uses to verify birth records, and that it uses to issue Social Security numbers to newborn infants. Additionally, the legislation will prohibit companies from requiring consumers to provide their Social Security Numbers, and will treat any such requirement as a prohibited unfair trade practice. The bill will also punish violators with fines and up to five years in prison, with up to 25 years for those who are involved in drug trafficking or terrorism. The bill also allows other sections of Federal law to impose stronger restrictions, and calls for reports analyzing the process for issuing Social Security Numbers. This legislation is necessary to help stop the epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and its citizens. According to a report that the Federal Trade Commission released in September, 2003, almost ten million people were victimized by identity theft in the previous year. This led to losses of over 47 billion dollars. The damage is not merely monetary. According to the same FTC report, the average victim had to spend thirty hours that is, three-fourths of a standard work-week--to resolve the problems. Often, the entire process can drag out for years. Perhaps worst of all, victims must confront the trauma that someone else has hijacked their very identity. According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, a non-profit group that operates in my home state of California: ``Each time you answer the telephone or go to the mailbox, you wonder what new bill will appear. The idea of dealing with yet another collection agency or a newly discovered credit card leaves you filled with dread, rage and helplessness. . . . Some feel like they are experiencing a form of `post-traumatic stress disorder' for a short time.'' Theft of a Social Security number can be especially devastating, because that piece of information has become a de facto universal identifier in American society. One recent book on privacy in the United States documents how far the use of Social Security Numbers has spread beyond its original purpose, when they were created in 1936, of tracking American workers' earnings and benefits. According to the book: ``The SSN began to be used for military personnel, legally admitted aliens, anyone receiving or applying for federal benefits, food stamps, school lunch program eligibility, draft registration, and federal loans. State and local governments, as well as private sector entities such as schools and banks, began to use SSNs as well--for drivers' licenses, birth certificates, blood donation, jury selection, worker's compensation, occupational licenses, and marriage licenses. `` (SOURCE: Daniel Solove and Marc Rotenberg, Information Privacy Law, Aspen Publishers, 2003, at page 447-48.) Despite this widespread use of Social Security Numbers, according to the General Accounting Office, ``No single federal law regulates the overall use or restricts the disclosure of SSNs by governments.'' (SOURCE: Social Security Numbers: SSNs are Widely Used by Government and Could be Better Protected, 2002 (Report Number GAO-02-691T) at page 5). As a result, the use of Social Security Numbers is regulated by an inconsistent and insufficient patchwork of State and Federal laws, that often leaves the numbers in plain view of the whole world. It isn't surprising, then, that the sale of Social Security Numbers is proceeding at a furious pace. According to the GAO in a report that it released earlier this year, ``Internet-based information resellers whose Web sites we accessed also obtain SSNs from their customers and scour public records and other publicly available information to provide the information to persons willing to pay a fee.'' (SOUCE: Social Security Numbers: Private Sector Entities Routinely Obtain and Use SSNs, and Laws Limit the Disclosure of this Information (2004, Report Number GAO-04-11), on Highlights Page). I personally first became aware of the need for a law to restrict the sale and display of Social Security numbers about eight years ago, when one of my staff members sat me down and downloaded my own Social Security Number from the Internet in a matter of minutes. Congress has done shockingly little to protect Social Security Numbers since then. Therefore, we badly need a uniform law such as the one that the GAO report anticipates. Year after year, I have advocated and proposed such legislation that would restrict the public display and use of Social Security Numbers. In the 106th Congress, I introduced S. 2966. In the 107th Congress, I introduced, S. 848 and S. 3100. In the 108th Congress, I introduced S. 228. None of these bills moved. Today, I stand before you yet again, to introduce a fifth bill to take steps that will make it more difficult for thieves to steal this precious resource. This is not a partisan issue--all of the bills that I introduced in the past were bipartisan. And so is this bill: in the House, as I mentioned, it was passed unanimously in the Ways and Means Committee, and also has 41 co- sponsors, including 16 Republicans and 25 Democrats. This issue does not concern Republican government or Democratic government; rather, this is an issue of good government. Earlier this year, the President signed into law a bill that I helped to author, to increase punishment for those who steal the identities of others. But punishment is not enough. We need to stop identity theft from occurring in the first place. We have only three weeks until the end of this Congress to enact this legislation to prevent such thefts by protecting Social Security Numbers. If we do not pass this legislation now, we will have to wait yet again to give basic protection to information that should have been under lock and key long ago. It is time for us to act. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent, the text of the accompanying bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank you. One last statement. Virtually all of law enforcement has implored us, has requested that we reauthorize this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York. I remember my call to him 10 years ago over in the House saying, ``Chuck, would you consider handling this in the House,'' and he did. It was not easy. After the 1994 vote, the House repealed the assault weapons legislation, under pressure from the NRA. He stood fast--we stood fast--and the law continued. I am very grateful to the Senator and I want him to know that. Going on at this very time is a press conference of law enforcement from all over the United States. One of the people who journeyed here for this press conference is a man by the name of Lee Guelff. His brother James Guelff was a police officer working out of Northern Station in San Francisco when a call came in that there was a sniper at Pine and California Streets. Officer Guelff responded to the call. What he found was a sniper, clad from head to toe in Kevlar, with military- style semiautomatic assault weapons, as well as over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. He had his service revolver, and the shots were flying. As he went to speed-load his weapon, he was hit in the head by a bullet of the hundreds of rounds this man fired. It took 150 police officers to bring down this man clad in Kevlar at the corner of Pine and California Streets. These weapons are not for civilian use. These weapons all were designed for military use to kill large numbers of people in close combat. Whether it is Geneva, OH, or Pine and California Streets in San Francisco, these weapons do not belong in civilian hands. I will show a few pictures of police officers who have been in similar status. Marion County, IN, Deputy Sheriff Jason Baker was shot with an AK-47 during a traffic pursuit. He was following directly behind the fleeing vehicle when the suspects shot him in the head with one of the rounds from the AK-47. He died that day from gunshot wounds. Lance Corporal Dana Lyle Tate and Corporal Dyke Coursen, Beaufort County deputy sheriffs, were shot and killed with an assault rifle after responding to a domestic disturbance call. Everyone who knows law enforcement knows domestic disturbances are fraught with jeopardy. When someone has an assault weapon against a police officer entering that house, the police officers do not have a chance. San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza, 29, was gunned down April 10 of this year with an AK-47. His partner was wounded as well. There were a number of bullets fired. He was shot in the back. Los Angeles County Police Captain Michael Sparkes, just on August 10 of this year, was shot and killed while off duty in Rosewood, CA. He was taking an early morning bicycle ride when he was confronted by two alleged gang members. The two men were attempting to rob Sparkes when an exchange of gunfire occurred. Captain Sparkes was shot multiple times with an AK-47 assault rifle containing a 40-round magazine of ammunition. Downstairs there are representatives from the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major City Chiefs, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Association of Black Police Officers.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Before the Senator from New York begins, I do wish to use my remaining 4 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe I have 18 minutes of that time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, some of us have come to the Chamber today: Senator Schumer, who handled the assault weapons legislation 10 years ago in the House of Representatives as a member of the Judiciary Committee; Senator Kennedy, who has been steadfast in support of this legislation for literally decades; and myself, as the Senate author of the bill. Ten years ago, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the President of the United States stood up for the safety of the American people and against the National Rifle Association, and we passed one of the most important public safety measures this country has seen, the Federal ban on assault weapons. That legislation was designed to dry up the supply of assault weapons over time. That legislation was designed so that no legitimate gun owner would lose their gun, nor have any. The assault weapons ban, although not perfect, represented the best we could do to stem the growth and spread of these weapons throughout our cities and our States. That legislation is going to expire in 5 days. A couple of months ago the Senate took a vote. We know we have 52 votes for its reauthorization for another 10-year period. Senator Warner of Virginia joined me in sponsoring that legislation on the floor of the Senate. We also know that the legislation has been effective because gun traces to crimes committed with assault weapons have declined by two-thirds in these past 10 years. The American people have supported the ban and their support has never waived. Today almost three-fourths of the American public supports the ban, as do more than two-thirds of gun owners. Law enforcement supported the ban in 1994, and their support has never waived either. Every major law enforcement organization in the country supports renewing this ban, and countless individual chiefs of police, sheriffs, and line officers have put themselves on the line to express their support, too. In fact, many of these same officers are in town today to let Congress know how important the assault weapons ban is to the safety of those who face these guns in the line of duty day in and day out. This chart illustrates the percentage of banned assault weapons used in crimes, down by nearly two-thirds since passage of the 1994 act. The NRA will say: The bill is cosmetic. It hasn't done anything. It has been ineffective. Then why do they make this legislation and its demise their No. 1 priority? This chart shows that they are wrong. In a moment, I will cite testimony from a former BATF analyst that says this legislation has, in fact, been effective. Presidents Clinton, Carter, Ford, and Reagan, and even Bush, have all expressed support for renewing the ban. President Bush stated his firm support in his 2000 campaign. He has never publicly wavered from that stance. But 5 days from today, none of this support will matter. The assault weapons ban will be history, one more victim of the powerful, selfish NRA and its brutal lobbying tactics. Because the President has steadfastly refused to put his money where his mouth is and help us renew the ban, it is going to expire without so much as even a vote in the House of Representatives. We have asked the President: Please use your leadership to convince the Speaker of the House of Representatives to bring this bill to the floor. Please use your leadership to twist some arms. If you support this, if you know the American people support it, if you believe it makes for a safer America, please help us. We have cried out in vain. There has been no response from the White House. Instead, the President quietly awaits September 13 and hopes that after he lets the ban expire, he can once again receive the endorsement of the NRA, because the NRA is not going to make their endorsement until the ban expires. This is truly a dark day in the Senate's history, as we let this ban, which has worked so well and has saved lives, simply fade away. I mentioned earlier that what the ban does is prohibit the manufacture of large-capacity ammunition magazines, clips, drums, or strips of more than ten rounds. It prohibits the manufacture and sale of 19 specific types of military-style assault weapons as well as a number of other guns based on a simple test to determine whether the guns were hunting guns or weapons of war. Come next week, companies will once again begin to churn out large- capacity ammunition devices, and powerful, easily concealed military weapons, all for civilian use. The NRA will try to hail this as a victory for hunters, but the fact is, no hunter has lost their weapon, and no hunter has been limited by the assault weapons ban. The law specifically, by name, exempts 670 hunting guns entirely. It is also important to note that the ban grandfathered in every gun made before 1994. No innocent gun owner lost their weapon. There was no confiscation component to the bill. But by banning the future manufacture of these guns, prohibiting the sale or transfer of any newly manufactured gun, the bill's intent was to gradually dry up the supply of these guns overtime. I mentioned I would give you some Department of Justice data. I mentioned the proportion of assault weapons used in crime has fallen more than 65 percent since the ban took effect. Let me give you an analysis that was conducted by Gerald Nunziato, who for 8 years served as the special agent in charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the BATF's, national tracing center. This is not some fly-by- night study. This is by the one person who knows what these numbers mean better than anyone. He found two things. First, as indicated by this chart, he found that: Assault weapons banned by name in the Federal Assault Weapons Act have declined significantly as a percentage of guns ATF has traced to crime, and in absolute number of traces, since the Act was passed. Had this decline not occurred, thousands more of those banned assault weapons would likely have been traced to crime over the last 10 years. He also said: The gun industry's efforts to evade the Federal Assault Weapons Act through the sale of ``copycat'' guns has not substantially undercut the positive effect of the statute in reducing the incidence of assault weapons among gun crimes. In other words, even though craven gun manufacturers tried to evade the ban, those copycat guns did not replace banned guns in equal numbers, at least when traced to crimes. I want to spend a couple of minutes and explain to you about a shipment that was recently found by Italian customs. Some 8,000 AK-47 assault rifles were on their way from the Romanian port of Constanta to New York City, according to press reports and BATF information, apparently bound for a gun store in Georgia by the name of Century International Arms. These guns had a value of more than $7 million--8,000 AK-47s. It is believed by some that these guns were being shipped to the United States in anticipation of the expiration of the assault weapons legislation. Though this shipment may very well have been illegal in any case under a 1989 Executive Order, think of one gun store buying 8,000 AK-47s in anticipation of 5 days from today. Think of where guns like these are going to go. Some are going to go to legitimate gun owners. Others are going to go to gang bangers. They are going to be sold out of the backseats of automobiles and on street corners to criminals. They have become the weapon of choice for those who go up against the police. Mr. President, that is 8,000 AK-47s in one shipment coming into the United States. One advertisement now running in gun magazines is from a company called ArmaLite. They make postban rifles. As one can see from this advertisement, ArmaLite is now offering a coupon for a free flash suppressor for anyone who buys one of their guns. A flash suppressor is used to prevent the flash of the gun when it is fired. So if you are using it, no one can see where you are, particularly at night, by the flash of the weapon. Let me read what this says: And by the way . . . ArmaLite's rifles are made to be easily retrofitted with your flash suppressor and your other pre-ban features so you don't have to wait if you're choosing an ArmaLite. They are giving a coupon for a free flash suppressor with every new weapon to keep in your pocket as a reminder to work with the NRA to get out the vote and to keep writing and calling your legislators. That is what we are up against: flash suppressors for votes in this country. It makes me sick to my stomach. The ad states: It is not legal to install this on a post-ban rifle until the assault weapons ban sunsets. That will happen in 5 days. A recent study by the Consumer Federation of America discovered that manufacturers are also gearing up to manufacture large-capacity ammunition clips. This is the danger. Just yesterday in Geneva, OH, somebody stood in the main thoroughfare and fired more than 50 rounds from a big clip. No one could get to him to disarm him. Three people were wounded. He just stood there and fired the weapon indiscriminately. One manufacturer told a caller from the Consumer Federation of America that there is a pent-up demand for 50-round clips and larger. Who needs a 50-round clip? Hunting laws in every State restrict the number of bullets in a clip to under 10. Who needs a 50-round clip? It is clear that time has run out. It is clear the President of the United States will not help, and this is truly a sad day for this Nation. My hope is if the ban expires and these guns and high-capacity clips once again start to flood our streets, some common sense will return to Washington and we can then put the ban in place. But I want this Senate to know, Mr. President, that I do not intend to give up. Next year, I will put a better law on virtually any bill I can find to do so, and we will come back and back and back, and we will have armor because no doubt tragedy will ensue. The assault weapons legislation has worked. No legal owner has been denied a weapon. No weapon has been confiscated. Yet the supply of these weapons on the streets have declined. A dominant majority, upwards of 70 percent of the American people, support its reauthorization. We have bipartisan support in the Senate for its reauthorization. President Bush, please, if you care, if you are listening, do something. The House can pass this. We have had the debate in the Senate. It will only take a few minutes for the Senate to cast the same vote again, and then you can sign a piece of legislation that we know makes this Nation safer. Mr. President, how much time remains of my time?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I withhold the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I echo the comments of Senator Byrd, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. While I do not have the perspective of his years of service in the Senate and on the Appropriations Committee, I share his concern about the breakdown we are seeing in this year's appropriations process. There are only 2 days left before the Senate leaves for an extended August recess. Yet the Appropriations Committee has reported out only 4 of the 13 appropriations bills we must pass this year. The Senate has passed only one Appropriations bill--the Defense Appropriations bill. This is a dereliction of our primary duty in the Senate, funding the functions of Government. The blame for this situation does not go, in my view, to the Appropriations Committee. In the limited work the committee has done this year, it has operated in an efficient, bipartisan manner. But we all know that the committee has been hampered by the failure to enact a budget resolution. A budget is a clear articulation of priorities. We are having these problems because of a failure to prioritize, or because of skewed priorities. As we all know, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a $477 billion deficit in fiscal year 2004. But some in the Congress continue to believe that more tax cuts should be the priority in this Congress. And they refuse to subject these tax cuts to the discipline of pay-as-you-go rules, which would require offsetting revenue increases, or spending cuts. They insist that we can balance the books by ``controlling'' nondefense, nonhomeland security, discretionary spending. Yet, no one has shown any inclination to significantly cut discretionary spending. Just the opposite. As Bill Young, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee notes: No one should expect significant deficit reduction as a result of austere non-defense discretionary spending limits. The numbers simply do not add up. The notion of balancing the budget, while further reducing revenue, is simply wrong-headed. Or, as Chairman Young succinctly puts it, ``the numbers simply do not add up.'' The Senate is scheduled for 19 legislative days after August. It does not appear that there is much hope for completing our appropriations work in that time. Indications in the media from the chairman and from the Republican leadership are that we will be faced with moving an omnibus appropriations bill when we return, possibly with some bills held over for a lameduck session of Congress. That is a terrible way to do business, and I sincerely hope it does not come to that. In the remaining 2 days before we recess, I am hopeful that we can at least take up my subcommittee's bill, the military construction bill. The subcommittee chairman, Senator Hutchison, and I have worked well together to craft a good bill with the support of Senators Stevens and Byrd. I believe that it deserves the support of the full Senate. And when the Senate reconvenes, in September, I hope that we on the Appropriations Committee will work efficiently, and on a bipartisan basis, to report freestanding bills to the Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination of William Myers to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to vote no on the motion to close debate. I came to my decision after a careful review of Mr. Myers' professional record. That review has convinced me that he is not the proper person to serve on this highly influential Federal court of appeals, which oversees all Federal litigation in my home State of California. I met with William Myers and I found him to be an extremely polite and personable man. But I have serious reservations about whether he has the professional qualifications to serve on the Ninth Circuit. I also have serious doubts about his ability to rule on cases, particularly environmental and land-use cases, in an impartial, even- handed way. A position on the appellate court should be reserved for our Nation's best legal minds and most accomplished attorneys. But, the American Bar Association gave Mr. Myers a partial ``not qualified'' rating. A key factor was his lack of legal experience. This nominee has little litigation experience in either State or Federal court. By his own account, he has taken only a dozen cases to verdict--and six of those occurred before 1985 when he was a newly minted lawyer. He has never served as a counsel in criminal litigation. Even as Solicitor of the Department of Interior, Myers had no role in writing legal briefs. Mr. Myers has spent a large part of his legal career as a lobbyist for cattle and grazing interests. Attorneys are obligated to zealously represent their clients and there is nothing wrong with this representation. But, I am troubled by a number of extreme comments that he made as an advocate. For example, in a 1996 article, Myers equated Federal management of rangelands with the ``tyrannical actions of King George'' against the American colonists. According to Myers, these tyrannical practices included: over-regulation and efforts to limit [ranchers'] access to federal rangelands, revoke their property rights, and generally eliminate their ability to make a living from the land. Source: ``Western Ranchers Fed Up with the Feds,'' Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, winter 1996. Equating Federal rangeland policy with the tyrannical policies that sparked the American revolution is strong language. But when asked by Senator Leahy to back up his claim, Myers could not come up with any examples. Similarly, after the California Desert Protection Act was passed, he described the law as ``an example of legislative hubris.'' The source is a book chapter: ``Farmers, Ranchers, and Environmental Law,'' 1995, at page 209. As the author of the California Desert Protection Act, I was quite struck by this statement. Myers himself has acknowledged his ``poor choice'' of words, but this is one more piece of evidence that Mr. Myers can be intemperate and extreme. The California Desert Protection Act created the Joshua Tree National Park, the Death Valley National Park, and the Mojave National Preserve. These are among our Nation's environmental jewels. In total, the act set aside 7.7 million acres of pristine California wilderness, 5.5 million acres as a national park preserve, and provided habitat for over 760 different wildlife species. It has provided recreation and tourism for over 2.5 million people, provided more than $237 million in sales, more than $21 million in tax revenue, and more than 6,000 new jobs. This is what Myers called ``legislative hubris.'' Similarly, in a 1994 article, entitled ``Having Your Day in Court,'' Myers railed against ``activist'' judges. He wrote of environmental groups: They have aggressively pursued their goals before friendly judges who have been willing to take activist positions and essentially legislate from the bench. Source: National Cattlemen Magazine, November/December 1994, at page 34. To illustrate his argument, he wrote: No better example can be found than that of wetlands regulation. The word ``wetlands'' cannot be found in the Clean Water Act. Only through expansive interpretation from activist courts has it come to be such a drain on the productivity of American agriculture. When I and other Senators pointed out that, 10 years prior to his article, the Supreme Court had unanimously upheld the application of the Clean Water Act to protect wetlands, Myers backtracked and acknowledged Supreme Court precedent. He further acknowledged that he could not recall any specific cases that would justify the argument he made in his article. Similarly, Myers, in another article, wrote that environmental groups are ``mountain biking to the courthouse as never before, bent on stopping human activity wherever it may promote health, safety, and welfare.'' Source: ICA Line Rider, February, 1998. When queried about these statements, Myers again backtracked. And he has argued that he was merely the zealous lobbyist taking tough positions on behalf of his client. There is one area of Myers' career where he can't attribute his words and actions solely to his role as a legal advocate. It is Myers' troubling body of work as Solicitor of the Department of Interior in the Bush administration. His record in this position provided for me the ``tipping point'' against his nomination. As Solicitor of Interior, Myers' client was the American public. He had a duty to carry out his work in an impartial fashion just as he would if confirmed to be a Ninth Circuit judge. Nevertheless, on multiple occasions as Solicitor, Myers engaged in actions that raised questions about his impartiality and professional qualifications. One of Myers two formal opinions as Solicitor involved the proposed Glamis Gold Mine in California. During the Clinton administration, then-Solicitor Leshy wrote an opinion that led to the denial of an industry proposal which would have carved an 880-foot deep, mile-wide, open-pit gold mine out of 1,600 acres of ancestral tribal land in Imperial County, CA. The Leshy opinion came out of an exhaustive review process spanning 5 years, three environmental documents, as well as several formal Government-to-Government consultations with the affected tribe, the Quechan Tribe. Within months of becoming Solicitor, Myers reversed the Leshy opinion. In coming to his decision, Myers met personally with industry representatives, but not with the affected tribe. This one-sided dealing cannot be justified or explained away--particularly because Myers was mandated by law to engage in Government-to-Government consultation with the tribes and to protect sacred Native American religious sites. Given that Myers would not even meet with the tribes to hear their point of view, it was not surprising that when Myers subsequently issued an opinion in favor of the industry, the District judge determined that Myers ``misconstrued the clear mandate'' of the applicable environmental law. In his only other major opinion as Solicitor, Myers reversed a Clinton administration regulation on grazing permits challenged by his former clients, the Public Lands Counsel. The issue involved whether environmental groups such as the Grand Canyon Trust could buy grazing permits from willing sellers in order to retire them. Myers, contrary to his strong support for property rights and free-market principles in other areas of Government regulation, found such a practice illegal. Further, as the Los Angeles Times has reported, Solicitor Myers recommended that California State Representatives Herger and Doolittle introduce a private relief bill giving $1 million worth of public land in Marysville, CA, to a private firm. Source: ``Interior Attorney Pushed Land Deal,'' Los Angeles Times, March 8, 2004, at B1. The land, called locally the Yuba Goldfields, consists of 9,670 acres of gravel mounds and ponds created by hydraulic mining during the 19th century. According to the Bureau of Land Management, the land contains sand and rock that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars for construction projects. It turns out the companies seeking legislative relief did not have a valid claim to the land and had never even paid taxes on the property. And since 1993, the property had been carried on the county's tax records as public lands. I am concerned that Myers committed the Department to support a bill without first doing the basic research needed to evaluate the issue, like consulting with local Bureau of Land Management officials. I would like to comment briefly on one other area. Mr. Myers' nomination is to the Ninth Circuit. Some might argue that circuit could use some shaking up. But criticisms along those lines of the Ninth Circuit are not justified and do not do justice to the Ninth Circuit's judges. This is not the time or the place for a long discussion of the Ninth Circuit generally. But I do want to cite just a few statistics to show that the Ninth Circuit's decisions are well within the mainstream of other circuit courts. From 1994 to 2002, nationwide, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in only .23 percent of all Federal appellate cases. The Ninth Circuit had numbers that were a bit higher for that time period; the Supreme Court granted certiorari in .37 percent of all Ninth Circuit cases for those years. But while higher than average, this was entirely within the mainstream of other circuit courts. The range among circuits for that time period ranged from .13 percent of all Eleventh Circuit cases, to .5 percent for all DC Circuit cases. The Ninth Circuit is clearly in the mainstream of how its cases are treated by the Supreme Court. Based on Myers' record, over 170 national groups have decided to oppose his nomination, including organizations that usually don't get involved in nominations. The National Congress of American Indians, NCAI, a coalition of more than 250 tribal governments, is opposing the nomination and they previously have not weighed in on any Bush-nominated judges. The National Wildlife Federation, which has never in its 68-year history opposed a judicial nominee, opposes Myers. In closing, I would offer the observations of Joseph Sax, a nationally renowned professor of environmental and natural resources law at the Boalt Hall, U.C. Berkeley, who is familiar with Myers' work. Sax writes: I do strongly believe that we are entitled to have persons of professional distinction appointed to important posts such as that of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Neither based on his experience as a practicing lawyer, nor while serving as Solicitor at Department of Interior has Myers distinguished himself, nor has he made any significant contributions to the law in his writings. . . . We can do much better. Given Myers unremarkable record and the serious questions about his capability to judge cases impartially, I do not believe we should confirm him to the Ninth Circuit. So I will vote nay.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to set the record straight regarding the Western energy crisis. Ken Lay, the former CEO of Enron, appeared on CNN's Larry King Live on Monday, July 12. Larry King asked him: Did Enron's problems or fortunes or misfortunes have anything to do with hurting California and its energy problem? Because a lot of politicians in California blamed Enron. Lay responded: Well, they do, and I still think to this day falsely, Larry. I mean, California, for the most part--I mean, California, California regulators, politicians, et cetera, caused the problem in California. Let me set the record straight. During consideration of California's legislation that deregulated the energy market, Enron was at the center of the lobbying effort that crafted the bill. Once the legislation was passed, Enron took full advantage of the loopholes it helped to create to manipulate and game the Western energy market. I would not argue that the system was perfect, but I would assert that Enron had a huge hand in creating such a flawed system, which it used to its benefit. Enron, and other energy companies, created a business environment in which the bottom line mattered more than the public good. As I have stated on this floor before, energy traders were completely unconcerned with customers having electricity as long as it meant that they got an extra bonus that day. And the fault does not lie solely with Enron. Other companies were also involved with gaming the Western energy markets, including, but not limited to: Dynegy, Reliant, Williams, El Paso, Duke, BP Energy, Portland General, AES, Mirant, CMS Energy, American Electric Power Company, and Sempra Energy Trading. The recently-released Enron tapes demonstrate the callousness of these companies: One trader complained: ``They're [expletive] taking all the money back from you guys? All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?'' A second responded: ``Yeah, grandma Millie, man.'' The first responded: ``Yeah, now she wants her [expletive] money back for all the power you've charged right up, [expletive phrase], for [expletive] $250 a megawatt hour.'' The good news is that the figures responsible for running Enron are beginning to be brought to justice. For instance, Ken Lay, along with former Enron CEO Jeffrey K. Skilling and former Enron Chief Accounting Officer Richard Causey, were indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice on charges of conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and making false statements. The indictment alleges that at various times between at least 1999 and 2001, Lay, Skilling, Causey and other Enron executives engaged in a wide-ranging scheme to deceive the investing public, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and others about the true performance of Enron's businesses. The alleged scheme was designed to make it appear that: Enron was growing at a healthy and predictable rate, consistent with analysts' published expectations; Enron did not have significant write-offs or debt and was worthy of investment-grade credit rating; and, Enron was comprised of a number of successful business units, and that the company had an appropriate cash flow. These actions had the effect of inflating artificially Enron's stock price, which increased from approximately $30 per share in early 1998 to over $80 per share in January 2001, and artificially stemming the decline of the stock during the first three quarters of 2001. The indictment also alleges that Lay had a significant profit motive for participating in the scheme. As stated in the indictment, Lay received approximately $300 million from the sale of Enron stock options and restricted stock between 1998 and 2001, netting over $217 million in profit, and was paid more than $19 million in salary and bonuses. Lay received a salary of over $1 million, a bonus of $7 million and $3.6 million in long term incentive payments during 2001 alone. Additionally, Lay sold 918,104 shares of Enron stock during the period of August 21 through Oct. 26, 2001, to repay advances totaling $26,025,000 he had received from a line of credit extended to Lay by Enron. At that same time, California was overcharged by at least $9 billion. Now we at least know where some of that money went. Yet even if Enron is forced to pay back the almost $2 billion it overcharged California, bankruptcy will protect the company from paying back much more than 20 cents on the dollar. It is my hope that as the evidence mounts against Ken Lay that the truth about his, and Enron's, role in the Western energy crisis will leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the crisis was manufactured by unethical, greedy corporations. California has suffered enough as a result of the crisis--it does not need to suffer further from Ken Lay's mistruths. Mr. President, thank you for letting me set the record straight.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in favor of the Jumpstart Our Business Strength, JOBS, Act. I supported this bill when first passed out of the Senate on May 11 of this year and I will support it again today. In fact, the DeWine- Kennedy amendment on FDA oversight of tobacco improved the bill. Without this legislation, U.S. companies will face increasing tariffs as a result of a World Trade Organization ruling that determined that significant portions of our Federal Tax Code ran counter to international trade laws. The DeWine-Kennedy amendment that we adopted will strengthen the bill by restricting advertising and promotions that appeal to children; stopping illegal sales of tobacco products to children; requiring changes in tobacco products, such as the reduction or elimination of harmful chemicals, to make them less harmful or less addictive; prohibiting unsubstantiated health claims about so-called ``reduced risk'' tobacco products that would have the effect of discouraging current tobacco users from quitting or encouraging new users to start; and requiring the disclosure of the contents of tobacco products and tobacco industry research about the health effects of their products. This amendment is absolutely essential to me should a tobacco buyout be included in the conference report. But this legislation is still far from perfect and I have growing concerns about what we may see when this bill returns to the Senate following conference. This concern has been heightened by what I see contained in the House bill. First, the House bill contains the $9.6 billion tobacco buyout proposal that contains no provision for FDA oversight of tobacco products. Second, the House bill is not offset by revenue raisers and would cost $35 billion through 2014, according to the official Joint Committee on Taxation estimate. Alarmingly, this cost estimate does not provide a true sense of the bill's fiscal impact because the bill employs two budget gimmicks. The first gimmick involves phasing in tax cuts slowly over the 10- year period covered by the legislation. This ``backloading'' of tax cuts shaves tens of billions of dollars off the 10-year cost of the House package. The second gimmick involves having tax cuts expire before the end of the 10-year period, even though the intention is, in many cases, for the tax cuts to be extended and to remain in effect on an ongoing basis. The Joint Tax Committee has estimated that making permanent most of the temporary tax cuts in the House bill would add $190 billion to the cost of the bill through 2014. In contrast, the Senate bill is fully offset and will effectively provide a 3-percent tax cut for manufacturers; give manufacturers a 50- percent tax credit for the cost of adding jobs; extend the research tax credit through 2005; protect hundreds of thousands of workers from cuts in Federal overtime protections; prevent the Federal Government from spending taxpayer dollars on contracts with companies that use foreign labor when there are domestic alternatives; provide a tax credit for companies which produce energy by using underbrush and other potentially hazardous fuels found in our forests; provide a tax credit for consumers who buy hybrid vehicles; protect the California film industry and the jobs it creates; and provide for FDA oversight of tobacco products. I will be looking for very specific items to be included in the conference report. The final bill should be fully offset and not increase the deficit; contain strong and effective FDA oversight of tobacco products if the bill contains a tobacco buyout provision; and require that any tobacco buyout provision be funded by tobacco manufacturers, not taxpayers; contain a tax credit for the open-loop biomass industry that works to reduce fire hazards in California; and protect companies, such as the film industry, that did nothing wrong under the old law and yet face the possibility of having their tax benefits cut. And, to the conferees, I want to stress the importance of these provisions to me. These are not ordinary times and we must protect the integrity of our tax system from those who would twist it at the cost of fiscal responsibility. The long-term budget outlook remains grim. Although the deficit may recede somewhat over the next few years from its current historically high level, it will swell as the baby boomers retire in large numbers in the coming years and eventually reach unsustainable levels. One of the most prudent steps that we as policymakers can take in preparation for this impending challenge is to reduce the deficit today. Moreover, corporate tax revenues are at all time low levels as a share of the economy. The Congressional Budget Office projected in March that corporate tax revenues will equal 1.4 percent of GDP in 2004--lower than the average levels seen in each decade since the 1940s. Furthermore, CBO projects that corporate tax receipts will remain at about 1.8 percent of GDP through the end of the decade. This is lower than the average level of corporate tax receipts in each of these decades except for the 1980s, when corporate receipts plummeted from the effects of tax cuts and economic conditions. Given the historically low corporate revenues, it does not represent sound policy to use the revenues gained from closing corporate loopholes to fund new targeted corporate tax breaks. The goal should be to restore the corporate revenue base, at least in part, in order to help reduce the deficit, not to diminish the corporate revenue base further. So while I support the Senate version of the JOBS bill because on balance it provides important protections for California workers and businesses, I do so warily and will reserve final judgment until I see the conference report.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my colleagues Senators DeWine and Kennedy. The amendment they have offered today is the product of many years of hard work and leadership. The amendment combines legislation to empower the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to regulate tobacco products with Senator McConnell's tobacco buyout bill. I believe this is the right approach. Last week, seven of my colleagues and I wrote to Senators Frist and Daschle to express our view that no tobacco buyout plan should move ahead if it does not include meaningful and effective FDA oversight of tobacco. The 5-year, $9.6 billion tobacco buyout provision in the House FSC/ ETI bill is not only worse for tobacco growers than the McConnell bill, but it does nothing to protect public health and to reduce tobacco's tremendous toll in health, lives and money. The DeWine-Kennedy amendment gives the FDA the authority to: Restrict advertising and promotions that appeal to children; stop illegal sales of tobacco products to children; require changes in tobacco products, such as the reduction or elimination of harmful chemicals, to make them less harmful or less addictive; prohibit unsubstantiated health claims about so- called ``reduced risk'' tobacco products that would have the effect of discouraging current tobacco users from quitting or encouraging new users to start; and require the disclosure of the contents of tobacco products and tobacco industry research about the health effects of their products. This amendment is supported by the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the American Lung Association. Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Every year in America, tobacco use kills more than 400,000 people and costs our Nation more than $75 billion in health care bills. Today approximately 4,000 children under age 18 will try smoking for the first time and 2,000 children will become regular smokers. Smoking is the cause of one-third of all cancers. Unless we act to pass FDA regulation of tobacco, this number will only get worse. During my time in the Senate, I have become very involved with cancer. I am the co-chair of the Senate cancer caucus and the vice- chair of C-Change, formerly the National Dialogue on Cancer, which is chaired by former President and Barbara Bush. The cancer community is united in the belief that the single most important preventive measure is to place tobacco products under the regulatory control of the Food and Drug Administration. I stand behind the cancer community and express the same belief. I firmly believe that cancer cannot be conquered without addressing smoking and the use of tobacco products. Smoking results in death or disability for over half of tobacco users, according to the Centers for Disease Control, CDC. Over the past two decades, we have learned that tobacco companies have manipulated the level of nicotine in cigarettes to increase the number of people to their product. There are more than 40 chemicals in tobacco smoke that cause cancer in humans and animals, according to the CDC. Tobacco smoke has toxic components, as well as tar, carbon monoxide and other dangerous additives. It is long past time to reduce the addictive nature of cigarettes and curtail the marketing of these products to young people. I believe that empowering the FDA to regulate tobacco will help do that. The U.S. Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have unequivocally demonstrated that, for example, antismoking campaigns can reduce smoking, a major cause of cancer. California is a good example. My State started an aggressive tobacco control program in 1989 and throughout the 1990s. As a result of California's aggressive approach, is the first State in the Union to see a decline in lung cancer among women, as a result of the State's active prevention efforts. This amendment will provide meaningful regulation by the Food and Drug Administration of the content and marketing of tobacco products, especially the addicting and carcinogenic components. I am pleased to note that even the Philip Morris companies has acknowledged the need for FDA to regulate tobacco. It is long past time to reduce the addictive nature of cigarettes and curtail the marketing of these products to young people. This amendment gives FDA the power to regulate tobacco products' content, design, sale, and marketing. I am a strong supporter of this amendment. However, I will not support any final proposal that weakens the DeWine-Kennedy amendment or contains a tobacco buyout provision that is fully funded by general revenues.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Biden, Specter, Kyl, Hollings and Allen, to introduce the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2004--legislation designed to deter, prevent and punish a terrorist attack at or through one of our Nation's seaports. I would like to thank Senator Kyl for joining me in sponsoring this bill, as well as Senators Biden, Specter, Hollings and Allen for their leadership and hard work on this critical matter. Last year, Senator Kyl and I introduced the Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003. That bill contained a set of comprehensive measures to enhance the security of our ports. At the same time, Senators Biden and Specter were working on legislation largely focused on the criminal law aspect of Port Security. Since that time we have joined together to craft the bill now before us. The legislation is narrow in focus, limited primarily to criminal law provisions. It is my hope that it will enjoy strong bipartisan support. I also hope we can continue to work towards a more comprehensive approach to seaport security in the coming months. Our nation's seaports represent the soft underbelly of our Nation's homeland security. Our adversaries, including al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, have the plans and capabilities to launch a maritime attack. In fact, just last week six al-Qaida associates were charged with planning the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole. in Yemen that left 19 American sailors dead. Millions of shipping containers pass through our ports each month. A single container has room for as much as 60,000 pounds of explosives-- 10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. When you consider that a single ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time, the vulnerability of our seaports is alarming. Worse, a suitcase-sized nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb'' could also be placed in a container and shipped into the country. With the current monitoring system, the odds are that the container would never be inspected. And, even if the container was inspected, it would be too late. In addition to the danger such attacks present to human lives, an attack on or through a seaport could have devastating economic consequences. Excluding trade with Mexico and Canada, America's ports handle 95 percent of goods imported and exported from the U.S. That means 800 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $600 billion. A terrorist attack would bring our port operations to a complete standstill. To give you even a small glimpse of what such a disruption could mean, last year's West Coast labor dispute cost the U.S. economy somewhere between $1 and $2 billion per day--a total of $10 to $20 billion. In its December 2002 report, the Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force described what a terrorist attack at or through one of our ports might mean in economic terms: ``If an explosive device were loaded in a container and set off in a port, it would almost automatically raise concern about the integrity of the 21,000 containers that arrive in U.S. ports each day and the many thousands more that arrive by truck and rail across U.S. land borders. A three-to-four-week closure of U.S. ports would bring the global container industry to its knees. Megaports such as Rotterdam and Singapore would have to close their gates to prevent boxes from piling up on their limited pier space. Trucks, trains, and barges would be stranded outside the terminals with no way to unload their boxes. Boxes bound for the United States would have to be unloaded from their outbound ships. Service contracts would need to be renegotiated. As the system became gridlocked, so would much of global commerce.'' This is a national issue, but one of particular concern to my home state because more than half of all goods imported into the U.S. pass through my home State of California. Last year, 6.5 million imported containers--52 percent of the containers entering the United States--traveled through California. Six million of these came through two ports alone: the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. That means that, if terrorists succeeded in putting a weapon of mass destruction into a container undetected, there is a one in two chance that this weapon would arrive and/or be detonated in Southern California. And the problem is not just with containers. Nearly one-quarter of California's imported crude oil is offloaded in one area. A suicide attack on a tanker at an offloading facility could leave Southern California without refined fuels within a few days. Since September 11, we have made significant steps in enhancing port security, but clearly, there is more to be done. This bill addresses some of those needed enhancements, particularly in the area of criminal law. The Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2004 does the following: Clarifies existing law to make clear that those who would try to access our ports under false pretenses are committing a crime; makes it a crime to refuse to stop when the Coast Guard orders a ship to standby for inspection; sets clear criminal penalties for the use of a dangerous weapon or explosive on a passenger vessel such as a cruise ship; imposes criminal penalties for those who tamper with navigational aids, such as buoys and transponders, intentionally place destructive devices in navigable waters, or intentionally dump hazardous materials in waterways; establishes a specific crime for knowingly and willfully transporting aboard any vessel an explosive, biological agent, chemical weapon, or radioactive or nuclear materials intended to be used to commit a terrorist act; the bill also makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully transport a person aboard any vessel who intends to commit, or has committed, a terrorist act; makes it a crime to damage or destroy a vessel or a maritime facility, to commit an act of violence against any individual on a vessel or near a port facility, or to knowingly communicate false information that endangers the safety of a vessel; provides sanctions to deter criminal or civil violations related to a range of offenses, including theft of interstate or foreign shipments; amends existing law to increase penalties for noncompliance with certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for incoming ships, including information regarding the content of cargo containers and the country from which the shipments originated; and finally, the bill toughens anti-stowaway laws and laws governing bribery of port security officials. Strengthening criminal penalties is one way we can make our Nation's ports less vulnerable. The Coast Guard, the FBI, Customs and Immigration authorities--all need the appropriate crime-fighting tools to prevent a terrorist attack. Today, we are introducing legislation to provide the crime-fighting tools that will do just that. I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.