Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to co-sponsor, along with my colleague Senator Grassley, the Drug Impaired Driving Research and Prevention Act. This legislation will help us combat an often overlooked killer on our Nation's roads--drugged driving. Drivers who are drugged are not as easy to catch as drivers who are drunk. We have not yet developed technology to quickly identify drivers who operate vehicles under the influence of drugs. States do not have consistent laws to punish drugged driving. And law enforcement does not have adequate training to detect and prosecute drugged drivers. To help make our roads safer, this legislation takes a tough stance while respecting State's traditional law enforcement powers. First, the bill directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to draft a model law to suggest to the States. That model law will make it a crime for an individual to drive with ``any detectable amount'' of a controlled substance in his or her system, or when drugs noticeably affect mental or physical abilities. For the worst repeat offenders, the law has tough penalties to show that we mean business--over a year in jail. Second, the law calls for research into technology to let us detect drugged drivers quickly. Right now, there is nothing like a ``breathalyzer'' test for drugs. And third, this legislation will have the Department of Transportation develop training programs so that law enforcement departments throughout the Nation can learn how to better detect drugged drivers. Why do we need this bill? Because drugged drivers are a reckless danger to everyone else on the roads. Consider the following: In 2002, 11 million people drove while under the influence of drugs in the United States. Those numbers translate into tragedy. Illegal drugs are used by about 10 to 22 percent of drivers involved in all motor vehicle crashes. Despite this documented risk, drugged driving is tricky to catch. We catch drugged drivers less often than we catch drunk drivers. Too few police officers have received training that would help them take drugged drivers off the streets. And in the fifty States, there is simply no consistent method to identify drugs in the bodies of drivers. Not surprisingly, this legislation has wide support. The federal Office of National Drug Control Policy is backing it. So is the Partnership for a Drug Free America, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, and other groups. The House of Representatives has already voted to approve the legislation, as part of the Transportation Equity Act. This legislation will help the states keep drugged drivers off our roads. It will do so by encouraging the States to make the laws against drugged driving uniform, by researching better technology to test for drugs, and by giving law enforcement more training. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Memorial Day and pay tribute to the brave men and women who have given their lives in defense of the freedom and liberties we cherish in this great Nation. Throughout this country, Memorial Day, originally recognized as Decoration Day, is a day to remember those who have died in service to our Nation. It was first widely observed on May 30, 1868, to commemorate the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers by proclamation of General John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, an organization of former sailors and soldiers. Over a century later, in 1971, Congress declared Memorial Day a national holiday to be celebrated the last Monday in May. Today, thousands of people attend Memorial Day ceremonies across the country to commemorate this special day. This year, our observance of this national holiday is marked by the opening of the National World War II Memorial in our Nation's capital. Authorized by President Clinton in 1993, this national memorial will be the first of its kind dedicated to all who served during World War II. It is during this Memorial Day weekend, in conjunction with the new memorial dedication, that Americans will honor the nearly 16 million who served in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II, the more than 400,000 who died, and the millions who supported the war effort from home. According to the Department of Defense, more citizens from California served in World War II than any other State. And an estimated 457,000 World War II veterans currently live in California. That generation, led by the Nation's Armed Forces, defended America's ideals during World War II and changed the world in the process. At this moment, another generation faces an equally difficult challenge that will define the world for many years to come. Today, we face a new foe, terrorism, which threatens the very freedoms that World War II was fought to protect. The battleground this time is less clear. Indeed, the threat of terrorism exists all over the world--not merely in the Middle East, but also on our shores. The war on terror is a massive effort that will require the highest level of commitment and dedication possible to enable America and her allies to prevail. Today over 1.6 million men and women serve in active duty spread throughout 67 countries. California alone provides over 182,000 military and civilian personnel. In Afghanistan, American troops, along with a multinational coalition, have defeated the Taliban regime, striking a severe blow to al-Qaida's operation in that country. Our forces have enabled Afghans to draft a constitution, laying the groundwork for a democratic government. Women will soon have the right to vote and hold office. Girls are being educated in schools again. Nonetheless, there is still much work to be done to secure the country and ensure the basic rights of Afghan citizens. The military success in Afghanistan has not come without sacrifice. No example drives home this point more than the death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman, killed in action a few weeks ago while on a mission in southeastern Afghanistan. Tillman, a native of San Jose, California, was an All-American football player at Arizona State who later went on to play professionally with the NFL's Arizona Cardinals. At the height of his career, he walked away from pro football to serve his country during wartime. On April 23, 2004, Tillman became one of 110 U.S. soldiers killed during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. His life was a model of sacrifice. The war in Iraq has proven to be an even more difficult task. Although our Armed Forces have removed Saddam Hussein from power and taken steps to set up a transitional democratic government run by the people of Iraq, our troops are in a very dangerous situation. It is rare that a day goes by without the report of another American who has fallen victim to the attacks of Iraqi insurgents. As of May 21, 92 Californians have lost their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. One of them was Marine Lance Corporal Brad Shuder, 21, of El Dorado Hills, east of Sacramento. He enlisted a month after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and fought in the invasion of Iraq last year before returning for a second tour. Shuder, a South Korean native, was adopted at 22 months and grew up to be a gourmet cook and opera lover. He was killed on April 12 of this year. I would also like to take a moment to name the other Californians who have given their lives in Iraq. Specialist Marcos O. Nolasco, Chino; Private 1st Class Michael A. Mora, Arroyo Grande; Sergeant Brud J. Cronkrite, Spring Valley; Private 1st Class Brian K. Cutter, Riverside; Private 1st Class Lyndon A. Marcus Jr., Long Beach; Sergeant Marvin R. Sprayberry III, Tehachapi; Specialist Ramon C. Ojeda, Ramona; Specialist Trevor A. Wine, Orange; Specialist James L. Beckstrand, Escondido; Sergeant Adam W. Estep, Campbell; Staff Sergeant Abraham D. Penamedina, Los Angeles; Private 1st Class Leroy Harris-Kelly, Azusa; Corporal Christopher A. Gibson, Simi Valley;Captain Richard J. Gannon II, Escondido;Sergeant Brian M. Wood, Torrance;Staff Sergeant Jimmy J. Arroyave, Woodland;Staff Sergeant Victor A. Rosaleslomeli, Westminster;1st Lieutenant Oscar Jimenez, San Diego;Private 1st Class George D. Torres, Long Beach;Private 1st Class Eric A. Ayon, Arleta;Staff Sergeant William M. Harrell, Placentia;1st Lieutenant Joshua M. Palmer, Banning;Lance Corporal Kyle D. Crowley, San Ramon;Staff Sergeant Allan K. Walker, Lancaster;Lance Corporal Marcus M. Cherry, Imperial;Lance Corporal Travis J. Layfield, Fremont;Specialist Casey Sheehan, Vacaville;Sergeant Michael W. Mitchell, Porterville;Lance Corporal Wiscowiche, William J. Victorville;Lance Corporal Andrew S. Dang, Foster City;Major Mark D. Taylor, Stockton;1st Lieutenant Michael W. Vega, Lathrop;Private 1st Class Joel K. Brattain, Yorba Linda/Brea; Specialist Christopher K. Hill, Ventura;Specialist Eric U. Ramirez, San Diego;Sergeant Patrick S. Tainsh, Oceanside;Master Sergeant Jude C. Mariano, Vallejo;Sergeant Eliu A. Miersandoval, San Clemente;Specialist Jason K. Chappell, Hemet;Sergeant Keicia M. Hines, Citrus Heights;Specialist Michael A. Diraimondo, Simi Valley;Private 1st Class Jesse D. Mizener, Auburn;Specialist Justin W. Pollard, Foothill Ranch;Specialist Michael G. Mihalakis, San Jose;Staff Sergeant Richard A. Burdick, National City;Staff Sergeant Steven H. Bridges, Tracy;Specialist Arron R. Clark, Chico;Sergeant Ryan C. Young, Corona;Staff Sergeant Stephen A. Bertolino, Orange;Chief Warrant Officer (CW2) Christopher G. Nason, Los Angeles;Staff Sergeant Eddie E. Menyweather, Los Angeles;Specialist Rel A. Ravago IV, Glendale;Sergeant 1st Class Kelly Bolor, Whittier;Specialist Genaro Acosta, Fair Oaks;Staff Sergeant Paul A. Velasquez, San Diego;Private 1st Class Karina S. Lau, Livingston;2nd Lieutenant Todd J. Bryant, Riverside;Private 1st Class Steven Acosta, Calexico;Sergeant Michael S. Hancock, Yreka;Specialist Jose L. Mora, Bell Gardens;Corporal Sean R. Grilley, San Bernardino;Private 1st Class Jose Casanova, El Monte;Private Sean A. Silva, Roseville;Private 1st Class Pablo Manzano, Heber;Lieutenant Kylan A. Jones-Huffman, Aptos;Private 1st Class Daniel R. Parker, Lake Elsinore;Staff Sergeant David S. Perry, Bakersfield;Corporal Evan Asa Ashcraft, West Hills;Lance Corporal Cory Ryan Geurin, Santee;Lance Corporal Jason Tetrault, Moreno Valley;Specialist Paul T. Nakamura, Santa Fe Springs;Sergeant Atanasio Haro Marin Jr., Baldwin Park;Lance Corporal Jason William Moore, San Marcos;Captain Andrew David LaMont, Eureka;Corporal Douglas Jose Marencoreyes, Chino;Private 1st Class Jose F. Gonzalez Rodriguez, Norwalk;1st Lieutenant Osbaldo Orozco, Delano;Sergeant Troy David Jenkins, Ridgecrest;Corporal Jesus A. Gonzalez, Indio;Sergeant 1st Class John W. Marshall, Los Angeles;Private Devon D. Jones, San Diego;Corporal Erik H. Silva, Chula Vista;Lance Corporal Patrick T. O'Day, Sonoma;Gunnery Sergeant Joseph Menusa, San Jose;Private 1st Class Francisco A. Martinez-Flores, Los Angeles;Lance Corporal Jesus A. Suarez del Solar, Escondido;Sergeant Michael E. Bitz, Ventura;Corporal Randal Kent Rosacker, San Diego;Corporal Jose A. Garibay, Orange;Corporal Jose A. Gonzalez, Los Angeles;Lieutenant Thomas Mullen Adams, La Mesa. The Pentagon reports that through today, America has incurred 797 casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 120 deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom. And more than 4,800 men and women have been wounded in these conflicts. Such grim statistics underscore the fact that the current administration must do more to seek international help, especially in Iraq, during these trying times. Additionally, we must provide the equipment necessary to keep our soldiers safe. At the very least, we owe our soldiers this for their tremendous sacrifice. In closing, I am honored to take this time to join every American in saluting those individuals who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to uphold the ideals of our democratic Nation. On Memorial Day, we renew the commitment of this great Nation to the common defense of the country and to the broader causes of peace and freedom from tyranny throughout the world.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, the Increasing Notice of Foreign Outsourcing Act, or the INFO Act. This legislation will help safeguard Americans' most important and sensitive personal information when it is sent abroad for processing to countries that may have lax security and privacy standards. The bill will ensure that American companies notify consumers of a business's outsourcing practices. It will require American companies to certify the adequacy of their outsourcing protections. And it will require American companies to hold their foreign business partners accountable for protecting Americans' data. In order to protect the information of Americans that is now vulnerable abroad, this bill calls for the following key safeguards: First, the bill requires American health and financial companies to notify consumers when sending their information abroad, and to certify the safety of the overseas processing. We drafted provisions carefully to minimize the burden on businesses, so they will expand on privacy disclosures that companies already make under Federal law. Second, American companies processing health or financial data must include clauses in contracts with their foreign partners to allow audits of their foreign information processors and to enforce American privacy standards. Third, the bill creates a system to inform American companies and Federal regulators of any security breaches involving American health or financial information at facilities operated outside the United States. And fourth, the bill gives Americans the right to have workers at foreign call centers disclose where they are calling from. The bill also gives Federal agencies the power to enforce these provisions. It is important to emphasize that this bill is drafted to minimize the burdens on businesses, by expanding on existing privacy data and security laws. While many are concerned about how outsourcing abroad hurts American workers, outsourcing also poses risks to the security and privacy of American consumers' personal data. The recent wave of international outsourcing means that we are flooding the entire world with our most sensitive information. Once sent abroad, the information is at risk because our Federal laws do not apply to foreign companies operating overseas. Another reason is because many foreign countries have far weaker security laws than our own. For instance, India still has no laws to protect personal and private data. And still another reason is because it is extremely difficult for Americans to use foreign courts to sue foreign companies that misuse American data. These factors leave the most intimate details of the lives of uncountable Americans vulnerable to lax security and to malicious identity thieves. And there is even more at stake. Information outsourcing poses a direct risk to national security. We are painfully aware that some people want to steal the identity of individual Americans in order to evade our homeland defenses and harm us all. International information outsourcing has skyrocketed in recent years. Consider the following: Tax returns for about 200,000 Americans were prepared in India this year. To put this number in context, India workers processed only about 1,000 U.S. tax returns 2 years ago. Tax returns have Americans' names, Social Security numbers, income, employers, addresses, and other details. The American Association of Medical Transcription estimates that 10 percent of all medical transcription of doctors' notes is being done abroad. An executive from Trans Union, one of the major credit agencies in the United States, told The San Francisco Chronicle that: A hundred percent of our mail regarding customer disputes is going to go to India at some point. If anyone doubts the risk that international outsourcing poses to Americans, consider these incidents: Recently, a low-paid transcriber in Pakistan was working as a subcontractor to the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco. That foreign worker threatened to post confidential patient information on the Internet unless the university coaxed her boss into paying some of her bills. Three weeks later, a strikingly similar incident occurred with a worker in Bangalore, India. In another incident, in Noida, India, an employee working at a call center used an American's credit card information to buy electronics equipment from Sony. Also in India, there is a burgeoning black market in personal identity information. According to one report, stolen names, addresses, phone numbers, the bank a person has an account with, and even bank account numbers are sold on the streets for mere pennies. These are just a few incidents. No one knows how many other times workers have done similar things. And that is a big part of the problem. It is not merely that Americans' identities are vulnerable when sent abroad. The problem is that American companies obscure how much outsourcing they do, and when they are doing it. For example, according to the San Jose Mercury News, a worker at a call center dealing with State benefits refused to identify his location. The supervisor, when she picked up the call, refused to say anything more than that she worked for Citicorp. In essence, the problem of obscurity is so bad that we can list only a few incidents reported by the media. How many security breaches have taken place? Have consumers been informed when their information is abroad and at risk? How much money has this cost consumers? We don't know. And so far, American regulatory agencies have been unable to say despite their oversight of these industries. And American companies have stayed mum. We need to break the silence. The fact is, our Government is simply not doing enough to protect consumers. Earlier this month I received a letter from John D. Hawke, Jr., who is the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency. He heads one of the agencies that regulates U.S. financial institutions and banks. Mr. Hawke wrote to me that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, known as the OCC, does not directly regulate foreign contractors that work for U.S. banks. Specifically, he wrote: [T]he OCC focuses its supervisory reviews regarding foreign servicing relationships on whether the serviced banks have adequate procedures in place. . . . That means the OCC is focusing on the American companies, not the foreign ones. I also learned from the OCC that it already suggests certain safeguards for American banks to use when they hire foreign information processors. The OCC asks U.S. banks to use contract provisions to make sure that foreign companies use secure methods to process data, and to let the U.S. companies audit the foreign companies. But the OCC only suggests that companies adopt these safeguards. The legislation we are introducing today would take safeguards like the OCC's a step further, and make them mandatory. Now is the time to act. We know that there are criminal syndicates, such as in Nigeria, that have fraudulently obtained bank information to steal untold fortunes. We can hardly imagine the damage such organizations can do with a vast new source of sensitive financial data from international information outsourcing. In short, this bill accomplishes four goals crucial to protecting Americans' sensitive data sent abroad. It requires companies to give notice that they send consumers' sensitive data abroad. It ensures that U.S. companies can audit their foreign partners, and impose U.S. privacy standards on them. It establishes a system to ensure that foreign and U.S. companies will report security breaches to the U.S. Government. And it allows American consumers to demand to know where foreign call centers are located. This bill helps to protect outsourced information while minimizing burdens on American businesses. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator Coleman to introduce the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act also called the ``Ryan Haight Act'', a bill which is vital to protect the safety of Americans who choose to purchase their prescription drugs legally over the Internet. This legislation is necessary because of a growing problem of illegal prescription drug diversion and abuse of prescription drugs. Coupled with the ease of access to the Internet, it has led to an environment where illegitimate pharmacy websites can bypass traditional regulations and established safeguards for the sale of prescription drugs. Internet websites that allow consumers to obtain prescription drugs without the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship pose an immediate threat to public health and safety. To address this problem, the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act makes several critical steps to ensure safety and to assist regulatory authorities in shutting down ``rogue'' Internet pharmacies. First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies. Second, this bill prohibits the dispensing or sale of a prescription drug based solely on communications via the Internet such as the completion of an online medical questionnaire. Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law. Under this bill, for a domestic website to sell prescription drugs legally, the website would have to display identifying information such as the names, addresses, and medical licensing information for pharmacists and physicians associated with the website. In addition, if a person wants to use the Internet to purchase their prescription drugs he or she will not be prohibited from doing so under this bill but, in order to do so, must already have a prescription for the drug that is valid in the United States prior to making the Internet purchase. Reliance on the Internet for public health purposes and the expansion of telemedicine, particularly in rural areas, make it essential that there be at the very least a minimum standard for what qualifies as an acceptable medical relationship between patients and their physicians. According to the American Medical Association, a health care practitioner who offers a prescription for a patient he or she has never seen before, based solely on an online questionnaire, generally does not meet the appropriate medical standard of care. Let me illustrate the situation facing our country today. If a physician's office prescribed and dispensed prescription drugs the same way Internet pharmacies currently can and do, it would look something like this: A physician opens a physical office, asks a patient to fill out a medical history questionnaire in the lobby and give his or her credit card information to the office manager. There is no nurse, and therefore no one to take the patients' height, weight, blood pressure, verify his or her medical history, and so forth and no one to answer the patient's questions regarding their health. The questionnaire is then slipped through a hole in the window; the office manager takes it to the physician, or person acting as the physician, who then writes the prescription and hands it to the pharmacist, or person acting as the pharmacist, in the next room. Once the patient signs his credit card, he is on his way out the door, drugs in hand. No examination is performed, no questions asked, and no verification or clarification of the answers provided on the medical history questionnaire. This illustration is not an exaggeration. It occurs every day all across the United States. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates that there are around 500 identifiable rogue pharmacy websites operating on the Internet. According to the Federation of State Medical Boards, approximately 29 states and the District of Columbia either have laws or medical board initiatives addressing Internet medical practice. Of the other 21 States, 13 have medical or osteopathic medical boards that have taken disciplinary action against a physician for prescribing medication online. Many States have already enacted laws defining acceptable practices for qualifying medical relationships between doctors and patients and this bill would not affect any existing State laws. For example, California law was changed in 2000 to say: No person or entity may prescribe, dispense, or furnish, or cause to be prescribed, dispensed, or furnished dangerous drugs or dangerous devices [defined as any drug or device unsafe for self-use] on the Internet for delivery to any person in this state, without a good faith prior examination and medical indication . . . I believe California's law is a perfect example of why this legislation is needed. The law only applies to persons living in California. As we all know, however, the Internet is not bound by State or even country borders. This legislation makes a critical step forward by providing additional authority for State Attorneys General to file an injunction in Federal court to shut down an Internet site operating in another State that violates the provisions in the bill. Under current law, in order to close down an Internet website selling prescription drugs prosecutors must take enforcement actions in every State where the Internet pharmacy operates, requiring a tremendous amount of resources in an environment where the location of the website is difficult, if not impossible, to determine or keep track of. This bill will allow a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of the law in every jurisdiction where the pharmacy is operating. While this legislation pertains to domestic Internet pharmacies, the practice of international pharmacies selling low-cost drugs to U.S. consumers who have valid prescriptions from their doctors deserves to be discussed and debated on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Senate will act this year on prescription drug importation legislation. In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, CA in whose memory this bill is named. Ryan was an 18-year old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001. His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-state pharmacy. It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay. Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers. Ryan's story and others like it force us to ask why anyone in the U.S. would be able to access such highly addictive and dangerous drugs over the Internet with such ease? Why was there no physician or pharmacist on the other end of this teenager's computer verifying his age, his medical history and that there was a valid prescription? That is why I support this legislation. It makes sensible requirements of Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs. With simple disclosure requirements for Internet sites such as names, addresses and medical or pharmacy licensing information, patients will be better off and state medical and pharmacy boards can ensure that pharmacists and doctors are properly licensed. Lastly, this bill will give State Attorneys General the authority they need to shut down rogue Internet pharmacies operating in other States. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, the Increasing Notice of Foreign Outsourcing Act, or the INFO Act. This legislation will help safeguard Americans' most important and sensitive personal information when it is sent abroad for processing to countries that may have lax security and privacy standards. The bill will ensure that American companies notify consumers of a business's outsourcing practices. It will require American companies to certify the adequacy of their outsourcing protections. And it will require American companies to hold their foreign business partners accountable for protecting Americans' data. In order to protect the information of Americans that is now vulnerable abroad, this bill calls for the following key safeguards: First, the bill requires American health and financial companies to notify consumers when sending their information abroad, and to certify the safety of the overseas processing. We drafted provisions carefully to minimize the burden on businesses, so they will expand on privacy disclosures that companies already make under Federal law. Second, American companies processing health or financial data must include clauses in contracts with their foreign partners to allow audits of their foreign information processors and to enforce American privacy standards. Third, the bill creates a system to inform American companies and Federal regulators of any security breaches involving American health or financial information at facilities operated outside the United States. And fourth, the bill gives Americans the right to have workers at foreign call centers disclose where they are calling from. The bill also gives Federal agencies the power to enforce these provisions. It is important to emphasize that this bill is drafted to minimize the burdens on businesses, by expanding on existing privacy data and security laws. While many are concerned about how outsourcing abroad hurts American workers, outsourcing also poses risks to the security and privacy of American consumers' personal data. The recent wave of international outsourcing means that we are flooding the entire world with our most sensitive information. Once sent abroad, the information is at risk because our Federal laws do not apply to foreign companies operating overseas. Another reason is because many foreign countries have far weaker security laws than our own. For instance, India still has no laws to protect personal and private data. And still another reason is because it is extremely difficult for Americans to use foreign courts to sue foreign companies that misuse American data. These factors leave the most intimate details of the lives of uncountable Americans vulnerable to lax security and to malicious identity thieves. And there is even more at stake. Information outsourcing poses a direct risk to national security. We are painfully aware that some people want to steal the identity of individual Americans in order to evade our homeland defenses and harm us all. International information outsourcing has skyrocketed in recent years. Consider the following: Tax returns for about 200,000 Americans were prepared in India this year. To put this number in context, India workers processed only about 1,000 U.S. tax returns 2 years ago. Tax returns have Americans' names, Social Security numbers, income, employers, addresses, and other details. The American Association of Medical Transcription estimates that 10 percent of all medical transcription of doctors' notes is being done abroad. An executive from Trans Union, one of the major credit agencies in the United States, told The San Francisco Chronicle that: A hundred percent of our mail regarding customer disputes is going to go to India at some point. If anyone doubts the risk that international outsourcing poses to Americans, consider these incidents: Recently, a low-paid transcriber in Pakistan was working as a subcontractor to the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco. That foreign worker threatened to post confidential patient information on the Internet unless the university coaxed her boss into paying some of her bills. Three weeks later, a strikingly similar incident occurred with a worker in Bangalore, India. In another incident, in Noida, India, an employee working at a call center used an American's credit card information to buy electronics equipment from Sony. Also in India, there is a burgeoning black market in personal identity information. According to one report, stolen names, addresses, phone numbers, the bank a person has an account with, and even bank account numbers are sold on the streets for mere pennies. These are just a few incidents. No one knows how many other times workers have done similar things. And that is a big part of the problem. It is not merely that Americans' identities are vulnerable when sent abroad. The problem is that American companies obscure how much outsourcing they do, and when they are doing it. For example, according to the San Jose Mercury News, a worker at a call center dealing with State benefits refused to identify his location. The supervisor, when she picked up the call, refused to say anything more than that she worked for Citicorp. In essence, the problem of obscurity is so bad that we can list only a few incidents reported by the media. How many security breaches have taken place? Have consumers been informed when their information is abroad and at risk? How much money has this cost consumers? We don't know. And so far, American regulatory agencies have been unable to say despite their oversight of these industries. And American companies have stayed mum. We need to break the silence. The fact is, our Government is simply not doing enough to protect consumers. Earlier this month I received a letter from John D. Hawke, Jr., who is the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency. He heads one of the agencies that regulates U.S. financial institutions and banks. Mr. Hawke wrote to me that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, known as the OCC, does not directly regulate foreign contractors that work for U.S. banks. Specifically, he wrote: [T]he OCC focuses its supervisory reviews regarding foreign servicing relationships on whether the serviced banks have adequate procedures in place. . . . That means the OCC is focusing on the American companies, not the foreign ones. I also learned from the OCC that it already suggests certain safeguards for American banks to use when they hire foreign information processors. The OCC asks U.S. banks to use contract provisions to make sure that foreign companies use secure methods to process data, and to let the U.S. companies audit the foreign companies. But the OCC only suggests that companies adopt these safeguards. The legislation we are introducing today would take safeguards like the OCC's a step further, and make them mandatory. Now is the time to act. We know that there are criminal syndicates, such as in Nigeria, that have fraudulently obtained bank information to steal untold fortunes. We can hardly imagine the damage such organizations can do with a vast new source of sensitive financial data from international information outsourcing. In short, this bill accomplishes four goals crucial to protecting Americans' sensitive data sent abroad. It requires companies to give notice that they send consumers' sensitive data abroad. It ensures that U.S. companies can audit their foreign partners, and impose U.S. privacy standards on them. It establishes a system to ensure that foreign and U.S. companies will report security breaches to the U.S. Government. And it allows American consumers to demand to know where foreign call centers are located. This bill helps to protect outsourced information while minimizing burdens on American businesses. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator Coleman to introduce the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act also called the ``Ryan Haight Act'', a bill which is vital to protect the safety of Americans who choose to purchase their prescription drugs legally over the Internet. This legislation is necessary because of a growing problem of illegal prescription drug diversion and abuse of prescription drugs. Coupled with the ease of access to the Internet, it has led to an environment where illegitimate pharmacy websites can bypass traditional regulations and established safeguards for the sale of prescription drugs. Internet websites that allow consumers to obtain prescription drugs without the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship pose an immediate threat to public health and safety. To address this problem, the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act makes several critical steps to ensure safety and to assist regulatory authorities in shutting down ``rogue'' Internet pharmacies. First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies. Second, this bill prohibits the dispensing or sale of a prescription drug based solely on communications via the Internet such as the completion of an online medical questionnaire. Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law. Under this bill, for a domestic website to sell prescription drugs legally, the website would have to display identifying information such as the names, addresses, and medical licensing information for pharmacists and physicians associated with the website. In addition, if a person wants to use the Internet to purchase their prescription drugs he or she will not be prohibited from doing so under this bill but, in order to do so, must already have a prescription for the drug that is valid in the United States prior to making the Internet purchase. Reliance on the Internet for public health purposes and the expansion of telemedicine, particularly in rural areas, make it essential that there be at the very least a minimum standard for what qualifies as an acceptable medical relationship between patients and their physicians. According to the American Medical Association, a health care practitioner who offers a prescription for a patient he or she has never seen before, based solely on an online questionnaire, generally does not meet the appropriate medical standard of care. Let me illustrate the situation facing our country today. If a physician's office prescribed and dispensed prescription drugs the same way Internet pharmacies currently can and do, it would look something like this: A physician opens a physical office, asks a patient to fill out a medical history questionnaire in the lobby and give his or her credit card information to the office manager. There is no nurse, and therefore no one to take the patients' height, weight, blood pressure, verify his or her medical history, and so forth and no one to answer the patient's questions regarding their health. The questionnaire is then slipped through a hole in the window; the office manager takes it to the physician, or person acting as the physician, who then writes the prescription and hands it to the pharmacist, or person acting as the pharmacist, in the next room. Once the patient signs his credit card, he is on his way out the door, drugs in hand. No examination is performed, no questions asked, and no verification or clarification of the answers provided on the medical history questionnaire. This illustration is not an exaggeration. It occurs every day all across the United States. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates that there are around 500 identifiable rogue pharmacy websites operating on the Internet. According to the Federation of State Medical Boards, approximately 29 states and the District of Columbia either have laws or medical board initiatives addressing Internet medical practice. Of the other 21 States, 13 have medical or osteopathic medical boards that have taken disciplinary action against a physician for prescribing medication online. Many States have already enacted laws defining acceptable practices for qualifying medical relationships between doctors and patients and this bill would not affect any existing State laws. For example, California law was changed in 2000 to say: No person or entity may prescribe, dispense, or furnish, or cause to be prescribed, dispensed, or furnished dangerous drugs or dangerous devices [defined as any drug or device unsafe for self-use] on the Internet for delivery to any person in this state, without a good faith prior examination and medical indication . . . I believe California's law is a perfect example of why this legislation is needed. The law only applies to persons living in California. As we all know, however, the Internet is not bound by State or even country borders. This legislation makes a critical step forward by providing additional authority for State Attorneys General to file an injunction in Federal court to shut down an Internet site operating in another State that violates the provisions in the bill. Under current law, in order to close down an Internet website selling prescription drugs prosecutors must take enforcement actions in every State where the Internet pharmacy operates, requiring a tremendous amount of resources in an environment where the location of the website is difficult, if not impossible, to determine or keep track of. This bill will allow a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of the law in every jurisdiction where the pharmacy is operating. While this legislation pertains to domestic Internet pharmacies, the practice of international pharmacies selling low-cost drugs to U.S. consumers who have valid prescriptions from their doctors deserves to be discussed and debated on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Senate will act this year on prescription drug importation legislation. In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, CA in whose memory this bill is named. Ryan was an 18-year old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001. His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-state pharmacy. It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay. Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers. Ryan's story and others like it force us to ask why anyone in the U.S. would be able to access such highly addictive and dangerous drugs over the Internet with such ease? Why was there no physician or pharmacist on the other end of this teenager's computer verifying his age, his medical history and that there was a valid prescription? That is why I support this legislation. It makes sensible requirements of Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs. With simple disclosure requirements for Internet sites such as names, addresses and medical or pharmacy licensing information, patients will be better off and state medical and pharmacy boards can ensure that pharmacists and doctors are properly licensed. Lastly, this bill will give State Attorneys General the authority they need to shut down rogue Internet pharmacies operating in other States. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, to introduce an amendment to address one of the critical security issues in the post-9/11 world: the existence of weapons-usable nuclear materials at hundreds of vulnerable facilities around the world. President Bush has singled out terrorist nuclear attacks on the United States as the defining threat our Nation will face in the future. In making the case against Saddam Hussein, he argued: ``If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of uranium a little bigger than a softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.'' What he did not mention is that with the same amount of uranium, al- Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas, or any terrorist organization could do the same and smuggle a weapon across U.S. borders. And the fact that Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's network put actual bomb designs on the black market only heightens the need to make sure these materials are not available. Nonetheless, there are hundreds of vulnerable facilities around the world that store from kilograms to tons of plutonium or highly enriched uranium. The State Department has identified 24 of these locations as high priority sites. In response to this threat, the administration has focused its efforts on removing vulnerable international nuclear materials through four projects: the take-back by Russia of highly enriched uranium fuels from Soviet-supplied reactors; the ongoing effort to convert Soviet- designed research reactors from using highly enriched uranium to using non-bomb-grade fuels; the decades-long effort to convert U.S.-supplied research reactors from highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium and the on-going effort to take back U.S.-supplied uranium. These are important steps, but I am deeply concerned that these efforts are not sufficient and do not adequately address the seriousness of the issue. For example, the current approach will take 10-20 years to complete at the current rate of about 1 facility per year. This time frame ignores the near-term dangers we face. Under the current approach to the take-back of Soviet-supplied uranium, there have been only two successful removals of highly- enriched uranium in more than two years, at Vinca and at Pitesti. But the Vinca operation also required the additional contribution of $5 million from the Nuclear Threat Initiative to complete, because of the Bush administration's claim of inadequate authority to pursue various actions to facilitate Serbian cooperation. The U.S.-Russian bilateral agreement on a broader take-back effort has taken years to complete--and even once final Russian government approval is secured, many obstacles remain. Indeed, Russia has never prepared certain types of environmental assessments related to these weapons. To move forward with this agreement, it will require sustained, high-level pressure. U.S. efforts to convert highly enriched uranium-fueled reactors within Russia are still moving slowly on the technical front, in part because of insufficient funding. And we are only now beginning to take the first steps toward providing incentives directly to facilities to give up their highly enriched uranium. The scope of the conversion effort in Russia is inadequate. It covers only research reactors, ignoring critical assemblies, pulsed powered reactors, and civilian and military naval fuels. This leaves numerous vulnerable HEU stockpiles scattered across the former Soviet Union. Under the current U.S. uranium take-back effort, if no new incentives are offered, tons of U.S.-supplied nuclear materials will remain abroad when the program is complete. And scores of U.S.-supplied reactors may continue to use highly enriched uranium indefinitely. If weapons of mass destruction, WMD, out of the hands of terrorists is the defining threat to our Nation, then removing weapons-usable material from facilities susceptible to terrorist theft should be a top priority for U.S. national security policy. Yet, currently there is no single, integrated U.S. government program to facilitate the removal of these materials. To address this problem, Senator Domenici and I have offered this amendment to: urge the President to establish a task force within the Department of Energy on nuclear removal; provide a specific mandate for a program to remove nuclear material from vulnerable sites around the world as quickly as possible, whether the material was supplied by the U.S. or the Soviet Union; provide flexible approaches, tailored to each site, to encourage facilities to give up their nuclear material, and; authorize funding to begin these efforts. Osama bin Laden has declared the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction a ``religious duty.'' After the Taliban was defeated, blueprints for a crude nuclear weapon were found in a deserted al-Qaida headquarters in Afghanistan. It is clear that obtaining a nuclear weapon is a top priority of al-Qaida. And a report released last year by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University demonstrated the severity of the threat posed by a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists. The report described a scenario in which a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb is smuggled into Manhattan and detonated, resulting in the deaths of 500,000 people and causing $1 trillion in direct economic damage. We must do everything in our power to prevent this from ever happening. This amendment will give our Government the direction and resources necessary to remove nuclear materials from vulnerable sites around the world in an expeditious manner. We have little time to spare. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I join Senators Lautenberg and Feingold in cosponsoring an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. This amendment will close loopholes that have allowed some American companies to skirt U.S. law by working with and operating in countries that have been identified by the President as supporters of terrorism. Although Federal law prohibits U.S. companies from conducting business with nations that sponsor terrorism, a few firms have exploited a loophole in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and are doing business through foreign subsidiaries, thereby providing terrorist states with revenue and other potentially important benefits. Under the amendment we are introducing today, foreign subsidiaries are barred from engaging in commercial transactions with terrorist- sponsoring states under the same standards and under the same circumstances as their parent companies. The definition of corporate entity would include not only U.S. companies and all foreign branches, but also foreign subsidiaries. Subsidiaries of certain companies have been using foreign subsidiaries to conduct business in countries such as Iran. Many of these foreign subsidiaries are often formed and incorporated overseas for the specific purpose of bypassing U.S. sanctions laws. This amendment does not change which countries are subject to U.S. sanctions or interfere with the President's ability to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act; and it does not change the sanctions under the act in anyway. It simply clarifies who is subject to the sanctions when and if they are invoked by the President. Currently Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Libya have been targeted by the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, all countries that we can agree deserve to be on the list. Despite the tens of billions of dollars that we are spending on the defense of our homeland, we still have a law on our books that allows U.S. companies to assist the very nations that support terrorist activities aimed at us. This is unconscionable. I want to applaud the efforts of New York City Comptroller, the New York Police Department, and the New York Fire Department to bring this problem to the Nation's attention.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I had the privilege of listening to the Senator from Maine. I feel very privileged to join in this effort along with the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from North Dakota. The Senator from Maine made an excellent case, and I concur wholeheartedly. Specifically, what we are trying to do with this amendment are two simple things: modify the 2005 base closure round to make it apply solely to military installations outside the United States. As Senator Snowe said, we need to begin to look at the 700 operations and installations we have around the globe and make some decisions with respect to them in this new asymmetrical war on terror we face. Secondly, provide for expedited consideration of a request for a domestic base closure round in 2007. I thought the Senator made the excellent point that Congress authorized the 2005 base closure round in 2001. Our military and our Nation have been confronted by several new challenges since that time: 9/11, the war on terror, the overthrow of the Taliban and the Hussein regime, and the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq. We now know our enemy may well be rogue states, may well be nonstate entities who seek to find weapons of mass destruction. They may well be international groups which have replaced the Soviet Union as the greatest threat to American interests and security. These challenges, we believe, mandate us to reexamine the role and composition of our military in this new era: What kind of force structure will be needed? How many troops will be sufficient? And, yes, what sort of infrastructure and basing needs will be required to meet these new threats? It seems very shortsighted to me to proceed with a new round of domestic base closures that was approved before 9/11 took place and before any of these questions were raised. In fact, the criteria for the 2005 base closure round is almost identical to the criteria for the past four rounds. How can we be sure this process will be fair and balanced and in the best interest of our military and our national security interests if it is based on criteria appropriate for 1995? For example, as Senator Snowe pointed out, there was no Department of Homeland Security in 1995. We are only beginning to understand how our domestic military infrastructure can play a role in providing for the actual defense of our homeland. That is a very important point. I do not think there is anyone who would say our homeland is beyond attack. As a matter of fact, I think a majority of us, certainly on the Intelligence Committee, would say there are very good chances that there will be another attack; therefore, domestic military has a new and different role to play in our country. I do not think now is the time to rush forward. We still have 112,000 troops based in Europe, 37,000 in Korea, 45,000 in Japan in bases designated, devised, and intended for cold-war-era threats. Those threats have changed. We see on the Military Construction Subcommittee how the thinking is now changing with respect to force structure, the location of force structure in Korea, as well as in Europe, moving more of the European components south of the Alps so that we may be able to move them more rapidly into the Middle East and into Africa. Suppose after the 2005 round is completed it is determined several overseas bases need to be closed and the troops relocated to the United States. Where will they go? Will closed bases have to be reopened? Let us also remember there is an economic impact on a community that must be taken into consideration. When a base is closed, jobs are lost, economic growth is stunted. Even the threat of a base closure is enough to scare away investment. Should we not take a look at our overseas basing structure first before we ask our communities to make additional sacrifices? Senator Hutchison, who is the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, and I, as ranking member, introduced legislation last year to create a congressional commission to take an objective and thorough look at our overseas bases. We met with that commission last week and gave them their charge to look at the mission and then make some recommendations to us with respect to the placement of bases needed by that mission. It seems to me the way one approaches this issue is to build on that legislation and first look at overseas basing needs in 2005, since they are, in fact, changing, and then turn to domestic bases, if necessary, in 2 years' time. I also want very briefly to mention the impact of base closures on my home State of California. California has had 29 military bases closed. It has cost the State more than 93,000 jobs, of which 40,000 were civilian positions. According to the executive director of the California Institute for Federal Policy Research, California lost more jobs than all of the other States combined in the last four rounds. While at the time we had only 15 percent of the Nation's military personnel, we shouldered 60 percent of the net personnel cuts. I believe we have sacrificed enough. If California is called on to make additional sacrifices and additional bases are closed in a future domestic BRAC round, we should know that our Government did a complete and thorough examination of the threats our country will face in the future and the military capabilities we will need to face those threats. While we are mentioning this, I also want to raise another real problem and that is the gross underfunding of cleanup and remediation of the bases. This has been short funded by literally billions of dollars. Let me make a couple of points. It is estimated it will cost $1.3 billion to clean up the former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento. That process will not be finished until 2033. The cleanup of Fort Ord will not be finished until 2031. Castle Air Force Base will not be completed until 2038, and the list goes on. What is the rush to close more bases that cannot be rapidly transitioned into civilian use because of the inability to fund remediation and cleanup of environmental hazards? So I think Senator Snowe made an excellent argument with respect to the need to take a good look at the overseas bases first--700 of them-- and make some decisions with respect to where we are going in this new asymmetric war on terror and to leave intact America's bases for the next 2 years and then, in 2007, to consider an expedited round. I am very proud to join with Senators Dorgan, Lott, and Snowe in this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Asia Foundation, a private, nonprofit organization based in San Francisco, CA, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2004. The Asia Foundation is a national asset that has contributed in significant ways to the mutual interests of the people of Asia and the United States for a halfcentury. Through its programs, the foundation has been instrumental at key moments in these five eventful decades. Early in its life, the foundation contributed to democracy, freedom, peace and constructive relations in post-World War II Asia. Since then, the foundation has invested in Asia's future leaders, built the capacity of democratic institutions, provided support to civil society groups, promoted the rights of women and created opportunities for economic growth and development. Today, the foundation is contributing to new initiatives in the region, building new governance and opportunity in Afghanistan, for instance, through support to the Constitutional Loya Jirga, helping new democratic institutions in Indonesia and programs with moderate Muslim leaders, and continuing to support human rights and prospects for reform in Cambodia, Nepal, and throughout Asia. Through its 17 field offices in Asia, the Asia Foundation has made its positive mark. The foundation identifies and supports reform-minded people at every level of society, from presidents and parliamentarians, to grassroots nongovernmental leaders. The foundation has supported educational institutions and libraries, legislatures and judiciaries, civil society and the media, all with the aim of improving the lives and helping to meet the aspirations of the people of Asia. In every corner of Asia, the foundation's impact is felt through the fellowships it has provided to thousands of Asia's leaders since its founding, the new government and nongovernmental institutions it has supported and the new ideas it has fostered to meet the challenges facing Asia today. In so doing, the Asia Foundation represents America at its best: a private organization working in partnership with government, advancing mutual interests of the U.S. and Asia in supporting vibrant democracies, open economies, and peaceful relations. As the United States addresses new challenges and opportunities in U.S.-Asian relations, we celebrate the Asia Foundation's history of achievement, and look forward to its continued contributions to the region in the future.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about the special education reauthorization bill, S. 1248, that was passed on the Senate floor today. I start by thanking Senators Gregg and Kennedy, in particular, for their hard work in crafting this bill over the course of the last two Congresses. This reauthorization process has truly been a bipartisan effort and is an example of what happens when partisan differences are set aside to work toward common goals. There are few more appropriate issues on which to work together than ensuring all children, regardless of their lot in life, are guaranteed an education that suits their needs. I support this bill because it is a step in the right direction. It is not perfect, but it reaches a fair compromise by giving States and schools greater administrative and fiscal flexibility, while continuing to provide parents with disabled children the assurances that their children will continue to get an appropriate education. This bill focuses on two main concepts: aligning special education law with No Child Left Behind and ensuring greater mechanisms are in place to allow disabled students to transition into mainstream society after high school graduation. No Child Left Behind requires States and school districts to ensure that all students are learning and are reaching their highest potential. Special education students should not be left out of these accountability mechanisms. They should have the same level of support and guidance as nondisabled students, and have the same opportunities to enter the workforce and continue their education after high school. The goal of this reauthorization bill was to put provisions in place to allow teachers and parents to plan early for special education students to make a life for themselves after graduation. I believe it is going to really help my State and other States around the country by giving teachers more guidance and support to do their jobs, and giving parents greater involvement in how their children are educated. I also hope that it will help identify children early--as infants and toddlers--so that they can receive the services they need before it is necessary for them to enter a special education classroom. One notable provision that the Senate attached to this bill on the floor this week is a mechanism to guide Congress toward meeting its commitment to provide States with 40 percent of the excess costs associated with educating students with special needs. Although the original special education law, which was passed in 1975, gave States assurances that the Federal Government would reimburse States for the cost of educating special education students, Congress has never come close to meeting its goal. Today, for instance, States are receiving about 19 percent or $10 billion in Federal funding to be used for educating special needs children. And while Congress has worked hard over the last 7 years to make greater investments in special education, States continue to struggle to educate special needs students because of how costly it is to teach them. The amendment offered by Senator Gregg and supported by myself and 95 other Senators sets up a timeline by which Congress will move toward its goal of funding 40 percent of the cost of special education. Every year, from now until 2011, Congress can use its discretion to appropriate up to $2 billion each year for special education. This new funding mechanism will mean States could see their Federal share of special education funds double over the course of the next 6 years. In California, where State schools educate 11 percent--or roughly 675,000 students--of the Nation's special education K through 12 population, school districts will receive $1.7 billion in Federal dollars this year. In spite of the large amount of funding the State receives, I am told that they have been forced to transfer billions of dollars annually from general education to special education due to Congress' failure to keep its promise to fully fund special education. An increase in the Federal funding commitment will mean that California could receive up to $2.7 billion a year in special education funding by 2011 and will no longer have to shuffle money from their general education budgets to underwrite the cost of educating special needs students. So this funding promise will make a huge difference to States and school districts and one that I was happy to support. Schools will now have predictable special education funding that they can count on when balancing their budgets and planning for future years. I also urge the Senate's support, in conference, of a provision adopted by the House which would require that increases in Federal funding above fiscal year 2003 levels be directly allocated to the local level. This would ensure that all IDEA funding gets down to our school districts that are responsible for providing quality education to children with disabilities. In California, this provision is critical in meeting the Federal responsibilities to assist all students with disabilities, including the thousands of students with physical and mental disabilities served by the State's large county education offices, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, that are tasked with educating the State's vast majority of special needs children. So I am satisfied that this bill will meet the needs of both school districts and parents. I hope it will help give students the tools they need to become productive citizens, teachers more flexibility to do their jobs, parents greater ability to work with schools to ensure that their children are getting the services to which they are entitled, and States the funding and oversight necessary to make sure that education for disabled students is as seamless as for nondisabled students. I am pleased to support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in favor of the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act. This is far from a perfect bill. But 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. Additionally, I voted for it because on balance it provides important tax relief for California businesses and labor protections for California workers. This bill 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; and protect the California film industry and the jobs it creates. Since January 2001, California has lost 350,000 manufacturing sector jobs. A 3 percent tax cut for manufacturers, coupled with a 50 percent tax credit for the cost of adding new jobs, will help us create more jobs in California. The research tax credit will also help California, potentially more than any other State. Productivity growth in recent years has been driven by the combination of new technology and investments in capital goods, research and development, workers, and public infrastructure. To continue this pattern of growth, the focus must now be on providing incentives to companies that invest, innovate, and create the new capital and knowledge that drive the U.S. economy. Since its enactment in 1981, the research tax credit has provided a powerful and effective incentive for firms to increase research spending. The tax credit lowers the cost of conducting research in the United States. This credit makes a real difference in the amount of research undertaken and jobs created in the U.S. I also support the Harkin amendment which was adopted as part of this legislation. This amendment will prevent the White House from implementing changes in existing overtime laws that reduce the number of workers protected by labor laws. Last year the White House proposed redefining the job descriptions of millions of workers, thereby eliminating their right to Federal overtime protection. After many in this chamber raised serious concerns over such a change, the administration released final rules that made a significant, yet insufficient, change to those draft rules. Unless we act, these rules will take effect later this year. If the Department of Labor's own numbers are correct, then more the 117,000 individuals could lose overtime protection. If they are wrong, it could be millions. These rule changes would wipe out overtime pay protections and increase work hours. In California alone, several hundred thousand workers could lose their Federal overtime protection. However, State law will continue to protect most workers from the most harmful effects of this rule change. But, some public employees and many in the film industry won't be so lucky. Although most workers in California will maintain their right to overtime through protections granted by State law, the rule change represents a movement in the wrong direction when it comes to protecting working families. I also support provisions in the bill that will prevent the Federal Government from spending taxpayer money on contracts that use labor located outside of the United States. Although our Nation has entered a period of economic recovery with significant productivity gains in the last several quarters--it is clear that a great deal of this productivity comes from two things: 1. downsizing of employees, and 2. outsourcing--turning to foreign labor in foreign countries. In the past decade, General Electric sent 10,000 information services jobs to India; Electronic Data Systems exported 13,800 jobs to several nations; Microsoft spent $100 million on a new call center in the Philippines; and Citigroup and Bank of America both sent software development jobs to India. And while corporate earnings are up and the stock market remains high, we are continuing to lose service sector and manufacturing jobs. I realize that many firms benefit greatly from outsourcing, but it damages the long term health of our communities unless we vigorously support new job growth. We must give companies incentives to keep jobs here, and we must ensure that taxpayer money is not used to subsidize outsourcing. This legislation will also help protect our environment by providing tax credits that encourage companies to produce energy by using underbrush and other hazardous fuels from our forests. By providing an incentive to companies to remove these hazardous fuels from our forests, we will reduce the chance of forest fires in the western United States and provide much needed energy to this region of the Nation. Additionally, this bill contains tax credits directly to consumers who purchase hybrid vehicles. These vehicles reduce air pollution and cut ozone in California. Having said this, however, I recognize that there are significant problems with this bill. For instance, it is clear that multinational corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes. This bill allows companies to bring foreign-earned profits back into the United States at a greatly reduced tax rate--reduced from the current 35 percent to 5.25 percent. This is half as much as the lowest personal tax rate paid by individuals--10 percent. Under an amendment which I sponsored with Senator Breaux, companies would have been allowed to bring foreign-earned profits back to this country at the reduced 5.25 percent rate provided that they use those repatriated profits for activities that promote job growth or benefit employees. Sadly, a lobbying effort by large multinational companies helped to defeat that amendment. What is disturbing about this provision is that an unconscionable number of American companies are taking advantage of loopholes in U.S. tax law and paying no taxes. According to a recent Government Accounting Office report, entitled ``Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign and U.S. Controlled Corporations, 1996-2000'', 61 percent of U.S.-controlled corporations and 71 percent of foreign-owned corporations operating in the U.S. reported no tax liability during the period studied. This means that approximately two-thirds of all companies operating in the U.S. paid absolutely no corporate income taxes between 1996 and 2000. This is stunning. Corporate tax receipts used to account for a much greater percentage of Federal revenues than they currently do. According to the Brookings Institution, in 1945, income taxes from corporations accounted for 35.4 percent of Federal receipts. In 1970, income taxes from corporations accounted for only 17 percent of Federal revenues. Today, however, corporate income taxes account for only 7.8 percent of Federal revenues. This means that corporations are paying a smaller percentage of taxes than they have in the past five decades. We have got to change the way we tax corporations in America. We have got to provide incentives to encourage corporate responsibility. Corporations have got to worry about more than just the bottom line. They have got to become good corporate citizens. Unfortunately, this bill does not do enough to encourage that kind of corporate responsibility. Going forward, I will seek to return balance to our tax system. The middle class is being squeezed, while multi-nationals continue to outsource jobs and receive tax breaks for doing it. Nevertheless, I will vote to protect California workers by helping to foster an environment where manufacturers can hire again. I will support research and development in our labs and factories. And, I will support protecting overtime protections for California citizens. This is by no means a perfect bill. But taken as a whole, I believe it is worthy of passage.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for a Senate resolution condemning the abuses in United States detention facilities in Iraq. This resolution makes clear that the abusive behavior we have seen graphically portrayed in photographs, detailed in the report of MG Antonio Taguba, and described by Secretary Rumsfeld in testimony last week, are unacceptable. Such conduct is wrong, un-American, and inconsistent with the history and tradition of our military services. It is critical that the Senate voices its absolute rejection of the conduct, and this resolution does just that. It must be understood that this resolution, however, is narrow and focused. It is confined to expressing our views on the specific conduct at issue. It does not purport to be a comprehensive view on the implications of this growing scandal, nor a conclusive statement of a congressional investigation into this incident, and its ramifications. I believe that such an investigation is necessary and should be undertaken as soon as possible. We need to know why the Geneva Convention appears to have been ignored. We need to understand how such a debacle could have happened, and what orders were given by who, and when, which governed the prison at Abu Ghraib. We need to know why the reports of the Red Cross and others were not responded to in a comprehensive and timely manner. And why was this problem concealed for months from the Congress and the American people. If the conflict in Iraq is seen as a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, then it is unfathomable how such a devastating failure in that battle could be allowed to happen. This is not just about personal accountability, or abuse--it is about the conduct of a conflict upon which the future of our security may depend. It is also important to recognize that planning and implementing a military detention and interrogation operation is a necessary and important part of a competent and professional war plan. There are three reasons why this is so: First, the information gained from proper interrogation is critical to protect our warfighters--it allows us to deal with the tactical risk on the ground in Iraq. Simply put, military interrogation is part of the overall intelligence-gathering mechanism which is designed to provide timely, accurate information to front line troops and strategic planners. Done correctly, a well-run, properly administered military detention system will yield information that will keep our men and women in uniform alive in the face of an increasingly violent insurgency. Second, detention and interrogation is inherently risky, and that risk is a moral risk. It is not easy to run prisons, interrogate detainees, and maintain order in a manner consistent with our Nation's moral values. There are certainly some guides to help manage this risk: the Geneva Convention, for instance, provides a well-established set of guidelines that can not only allow American soldiers to adhere to international law, but help them ensure that their conduct is acceptable to Americans and to our moral code. Third, it should be apparent that the administration of a military prison system inside Iraq is a clear danger point in the context of our strategic goals--prisons pose a necessary, but important, strategic risk. Failure to adhere to the highest standards of conduct will fuel the increasingly hostile view of Americans and American policy in Iraq and the Middle East. I have reviewed Secretary Rumsfeld's testimony, as well as other information provided in public statements of the administration and private briefings. I am becoming increasingly concerned that the Secretary, and the Administration, are missing the point of this growing scandal. Of course there is a need to investigate individual wrongdoing and hold people accountable for their acts according to the Code of Military Justice. But much more needs to be done. I see little evidence that there has been adequate planning for the management and function of military detention facilities in Iraq, and this failure needs to be addressed now. This is critical for the three reasons I outlined above. In essence, military detention facilities should be looked upon exactly like other elements of war-planning--necessary to fight successfully, but carrying risks to our soldiers and to our mission. I am concerned that this function has not been adequately planned. It does not surprise me that we see the lack of planning becoming apparent in the revelation of individual misconduct, but I think it is critical that the Department of Defense take on the larger issue, and take it on immediately. The situation is grim. Each of the three risks I mentioned have come to be. Some of our soldiers, inadequately supervised and poorly commanded, have succumbed to the moral hazards of running a prison. I do not excuse their actions, and they will be held accountable for their actions. But it is predictable that without adequate command and control such conduct will happen in a prison, and for that Secretary Rumsfeld and senior Army commanders are responsible. It is clear that the potentially valuable source of tactical intelligence that could have been gained through the competent and professional administration of military detention facilities was wantonly thrown away by allowing those facilities to degenerate into a chaotic and ungoverned free-for-all. It is my view that there is a place for properly conducted interrogation in the context of a military detention facility. But it seems to me that what we have seen is not overly aggressive interrogation, but wanton cruelty and abuse, unconnected with any doctrinally acceptable method of prisoner interrogation. We will never know what potentially valuable tactical intelligence was lost in the chaos of Abu Ghraib prison, but I am confident that whatever intelligence was there was unlikely to have been elicited in that environment. Again, Secretary Rumsfeld and senior commanders are responsible for this failure, and I call upon them to immediately remedy this situation. We have troops on the ground, under fire, and we cannot afford to abandon a mechanism for gathering intelligence which could help make our troops safer. Finally, the failure to run this element of our war effort competently has resulted in a catastrophic setback to our strategic interests. It should have been self-evident that failure to run U.S. detention facilities in a professional, competent and lawful manner would, when made public, adversely affect our prospects in Iraq and in the region. Simply put, American soldiers will come under increasing fire because of the failure to run the prisons correctly, and whatever prospects remain for peacefully transferring power to an Iraqi government have been diminished. In sum, it is important to recognize that planning for detention and interrogation of prisoners is as much a part of war planning as making sure that there is enough gas for tanks, enough ammunition for guns and armor for our soldiers. I am concerned that the failure to plan for this aspect of the war is consistent with a general pattern at the Pentagon--an unwillingness to plan for the realities of Iraq and the Middle East. We will all pay for that failure. One key part of the resolution speaks to the roll of the Congress, noting that ``the best interests of the United States and the American people will be served by a full investigation by the appropriate Committees of the United States Senate exercising their oversight responsibilities.'' This is a critical point. This body must immediately begin its task of addressing this issue. There are a few particular questions upon which I hope we will focus: Whether, and to what extent, the conditions and procedures in Abu Ghraib and other prisons came about because of particular policy decisions by senior officials. For instance, who made the decision, reported in the media, to use prison guards to ``set the conditions'' for interrogations? Why was the critical task of administering Abu Gharaib entrusted to soldiers without adequate training or guidance? Who in the command structure is responsible for maintaining and administering our military program to detain and interrogate prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere? I hope we can answer these, and other questions, and make the changes necessary to make our nation safer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, tens of thousands of women will come to Washington this Mother's Day weekend to spread the word about the urgent need to renew the Federal assault weapons ban. I thank these women, and their families and friends who will join them, for their effort to focus the American public on the fact that we could lose this important law unless Congress and the President renew the ban soon. I ask these committed Americans to do everything they can do to help save the assault weapons ban. They should write the President and urge him to help renew the ban. They should write Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and urge them to bring the assault weapons ban up for a vote. They should make their voices heard until the ban is renewed. Time is running out. The Federal assault weapons ban will expire on September 13 of this year if Congress and the President do not act. This means that AK-47s, TEC-DC 9s, Street Sweepers, and dozens of other types of military-style assault weapons will once again flood the streets of America. We cannot afford to let this happen. We owe the American people more than that. It is just that simple. Assault weapons pose a grave threat to all Americans, but most especially to law enforcement officers on our city streets. Just last month, I spoke at the funeral of San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza, who was shot and killed by a gang member armed with an AK-47 and a 30-round clip. Officer Espinoza took three shots in his back as a gunman fired 15 rounds in just seconds, giving Officer Espinoza and his partner, who was also shot, no time to seek refuge. Officer Espinoza was a bright young star in the San Francisco Police Department, and he had a promising future and loving family. Now that future is gone. His wife Renata is without a husband. His beautiful 3- year-old girl Isabella is without a father. And Officer Espinoza is far from the only law enforcement officer gunned down in his prime by an assailant wielding an assault weapon. A recent study by the Violence Policy Center stated that one in five police officers killed in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon. That study listed a number of officers gunned down by assault weapons, and I would just like to list a few examples because if we let the assault weapons ban expire, we can expect many more of these incidents. On January 10, 1999: Officer James Williams was killed with a MAK-90 or SA85 7.62mm rifle. Officer Williams was among a group of officers who were searching for a rifle that had been discarded by the occupants of a vehicle that was involved in a chase with police. While they were searching for the rifle, a gunman opened fire from a nearby overpass, killing Officer Williams. Chad Rhodes was arrested and charged with special- circumstances murder, attempted murder, three counts of firing an assault weapon, and possessing an assault weapon. Rhodes pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. On June 12, 1999 in Orange County, California: Sheriff's Deputy Brad Riches was killed with a MAK-90 or SA85 7.62mm rifle. Deputy Riches was sitting in his patrol car outside a 7-Eleven when his police cruiser was riddled with assault weapon fire. The 7-Eleven clerk said that a customer told him he was carrying an AK-47-style assault rifle to shoot a police officer. Maurice Steksal was convicted on November 19, 2002 of the first-degree murder of Deputy Riches. And there are many, many more. But the list would be far longer if the assault weapons ban were not in place, because more of these guns would be out there. They would be easier for criminals to get and to use, and more officers would be killed. Indeed, these shootings underscore the fundamental danger assault weapons pose to our society. The good news is that the Senate has gone on record in support of extending the ban on military-style assault weapons. In a bipartisan vote in March, the Senate approved a straight 10-year renewal of the current ban as an amendment to a bill being pushed by the National Rifle Association giving gun manufacturers and dealers protection from civil lawsuits. But in a bizarre twist, the NRA scuttled its own bill to prevent the extension from becoming law. This is the power of the NRA. In over a decade as a U.S. Senator, I have encountered no lobby stronger than the gun lobby. I am convinced that if the NRA is going to be defeated, it will be by the mothers and fathers of this Nation-- parents who want a future for their children free of the violence and bloodshed sparked by the vast overproliferation of guns throughout our country. These are the people who came together in the first Million Mom March 4 years ago, and these are the people who will come together again this weekend. These people will stand firm and say: Enough is Enough. Now is the time to protect our families from assault weapons. There cannot be any turning back. Over the past decade, we have had a chance to examine the assault weapons ban and to determine if it works and enjoys support. The results are in. The ban works. Recent Department of Justice records indicate that the use of banned assault weapons in crimes has declined measurably--by 65 percent in one analysis--since the measure took effect. The men and women of law enforcement across the Nation support the ban because, on the front lines, they know it protects them and makes communities safer. The Fraternal Order of Police endorses another 10 years, as does almost every other major law enforcement organization, including chiefs of police all across the Nation. No weapons have been confiscated from legitimate gun owners. In fact, the bill specifically protects 670 shotguns and rifles used for hunting. Almost three-fourths of the American people, and two-thirds of gun owners, support renewing the ban. In fact, a recent University of Pennsylvania Annenberg poll found that 71 percent of all Americans support renewing the assault weapons ban; 64 percent of people in homes with a gun supported extension of the ban; and even 46 percent of people in NRA households support extending the ban, contrary to claims by NRA leadership that its members are universally against this proposal. Some in the Senate opposed the ban a decade ago, fearing it would do little to reduce crime, and could threaten the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners and hunters. Now, 10 years since that vote, America has seen just the opposite: the ban has made our streets safer, it has protected law enforcement officers, and in no way has it diminished legitimate gun owners' rights. Moreover, we all know that the world has dramatically changed since 1993. September 11, 2001, has taught us many lessons; among them that terrorism lurks in our own cities and communities. Given today's dangers, it defies logic to let suicidal terrorists, gang members and others simply walk up to a counter and buy these weapons for potential attacks. Assault weapons pose a fundamental danger to law enforcement and our society, and we will continue to work to extend the ban in the Senate. The assault weapons ban is too important to let die. The bottom line is this--what is the argument for letting these banned guns back on the streets? Who is clamoring for newly manufactured AK-47s? Who is clamoring for new TEC-9s? These are guns that are never used for hunting. They are not used for self-defense, and if they are, it is more likely that they will kill innocents than intruders. These guns--and everyone knows it--have but one purpose, and that purpose is to kill other human beings. Why would we want to open the floodgates again and let them back on our streets? There is simply no good reason. For a number of years now, President Bush has indicated that he supports renewing the assault weapons ban for another decade. But he has not lifted a finger to help. Ultimately, however, the voice of the White House will be pivotal in determining if the ban is ultimately approved by Congress and signed into law. Now is the time to renew a sound law for another 10 years. We do this in the memory of Officer Espinoza and all the other police officers shot and killed with assault weapons. We do this on behalf of all the women who are marching on Washington this weekend. And we do this to keep our communities safe.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and to pay tribute to the struggles and enormous contributions of Asian Pacific Americans to our Nation's history and culture. Each May since 1978, we have honored the rich heritage and countless achievements of the many Asian Pacific Americans in our country. The month of May was aptly chosen in order to commemorate both the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants in 1843, and also the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869, which was constructed in large part by Chinese laborers. ``Freedom for All, a Nation We Call Our Own'' is the theme for this year's celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. This phrase beautifully encapsulates the great journey of Asian Pacific Americans to achieve the American dream and rings especially true during these uncertain times at home and abroad. The men and women of our Armed Forces, many of whom are from the APA community, are proudly serving all over the world to secure our homeland. Currently, thousands of young Asian Pacific Americans are defending our country, joining the ranks of over 300,000 APA veterans who have served in the name of freedom. One such veteran is my esteemed colleague, Senator Inouye of Hawaii, who began his career in public service during World War II where he served in the Army's 442d Regimental Combat Team. The famed ``Go for Broke'' regiment of Japanese American soldiers courageously defended our country abroad even as their families endured unjust internment at home. This is just one of the many achievements made by Asian Pacific Americans in the face of adversity. Despite discriminatory laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Alien Law Act of 1920, and the forced internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, Asian Pacific Americans have forged ahead to become a very successful and fast-growing segment of American society. Today, over 13 million Asian Pacific Americans reside in the United States. Whether through academics, technology, the arts, or business, the impact of the APA community is felt in virtually every aspect of our society. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that Asian Pacific American firms alone account for 2.2 million American jobs and generate over $300 billion in revenue. In California alone, Asian Pacific Americans own over 12 percent of all businesses, making them a significant force in the State's economy. Asian Pacific Americans are also gaining an increased presence in Federal, State, and local governments. Throughout my career, I have had the distinct honor of working with many extraordinary Asian Pacific American leaders such as Senators Inouye and Akaka of Hawaii, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, and Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. Each of these public servants can function as an inspiration to all Americans. But even as we celebrate these achievements, we must continue to address the struggles and hardships experienced by certain segments of the APA community. In California, we have large populations of Southeast Asian and Pacific Islanders who have recently sought refuge in our country as a result of war and civil unrest. As these newcomers to America pursue their dreams and goals, we need to remember the challenges they face and stay vigilant against discrimination and hate. That is why I believe one of the most significant contributions of Asian Pacific Americans to our Nation is their role as our neighbors. America draws its strength from diversity. The presence of Asian Pacific Americans in our communities further adds to the vibrancy of the American landscape. The strength of diversity is evident in my home State of California, where close to one-third of the entire Asian Pacific American population lives. One only needs to look at Los Angeles and San Francisco to see the rich kaleidoscope of cultures and traditions that Asian Pacific Americans have brought to their communities. Places such as Chinatown, Little Tokyo, Little Saigon and Koreatown are no longer isolated ethnic enclaves. As the APA community has spread and grown, these historic neighborhoods have become vibrant centers of cultural exchange and learning. As a former mayor and native of San Francisco, I can safely say that my hometown would not be the wonderfully vibrant, bustling city it is without the conditions of the Asian Pacific American community. Finally, Asian Pacific Americans played an important role as we built our country into what it is today. I am pleased to take this time today to honor the accomplishments of these remarkable Americans during this Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Cinco de Mayo, an important day in both Mexican and American history as well as a symbolic day to honor Mexican heritage. Cinco de Mayo pays tribute to the courage and strength of the people of Mexico and to the profound contributions Mexican Americans have made to our country's history and culture. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are nearly 10 million people of Mexican descent living in my home State of California alone. Every day, Mexican Americans make huge contributions to our communities in every sector of the economy, in every level of government, and in every aspect of society. Mexican-American leaders such as the late Cesar Chavez, founder of the United Farm Workers Union, have left indelible footprints in our national memory. Organizations such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Council of La Raza, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund collaborate with government, civic, community, and other organizations to improve economic, educational, and civil rights for Latinos. Truly, a comprehensive snapshot of California would be grossly incomplete without full representation of the Mexican-American community. Many celebrations with traditional food, music, and parades take place across the country and throughout California on Cinco de Mayo. Hundreds of thousands will gather to embrace and celebrate Mexican heritage. Cinco de Mayo celebrations can be large festivals drawing thousands of people, such as those in San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose as well as small, more intimate events among neighbors. It is very much the same as the way we observe the Fourth of July-- both in the variety of ways people choose to celebrate and in that a specific historic event inspired the holiday, which has come to symbolize a much broader spirit. No one would want to limit the meaning of the Fourth of July to a narrow celebration of American independence from Great Britain, nor would you reduce Cinco de Mayo to a commemoration of the Mexican military victory in Puebla by itself. However, it is important to recall the bravery of the Mexican Army when France, under the rule of Napoleon III, sought to establish a political and economic foothold in Latin America by installing their own ruler in Mexico. Napoleon's troops, who had not been defeated in battle for almost 50 years, entered Mexico with considerable technological advantages over the Mexican Army. The French Army moved west to attack Mexico City, mindful that if the Mexican capital fell, a complete takeover of Mexico was imminent. On May 5, 1862, the Mexican Army defeated the invading French forces in the city of Puebla under the command of General Zaragosa and Colonel Porfirio Diaz. If not for the great courage of the Mexican Army, the course of history would be undoubtedly altered. In my mind, Cinco de Mayo epitomizes what it means for immigrant communities to flourish, making their own unique additions to American culture. One San Francisco family, the Ramirezes, who immigrated to the United States from Jalisco, Mexico, in 1955, are truly an American success story. Ramon Ramirez and his wife Guadalupe worked several jobs before acquiring a San Francisco deli in 1967. Soon the space proved too small to accommodate their customers and in 1982, they expanded and opened Don Ramon's restaurant. I used to frequent Don Ramon's when I was the Mayor of San Francisco and I was always sincerely impressed with the Ramirez family. Ramon and Guadalupe still work every day at Don Ramon's, arriving before dawn. Their three daughters remain involved in running the restaurant, though their youngest daughter, Nati, has also pursued another career as director of the San Francisco district attorney's subpoena unit. This is only one of many examples of how Mexican Americans have helped our country to flourish. Finally, I am pleased to join every American and every Mexican in celebrating this important day in Mexican history. On Cinco de Mayo we pay tribute not only to the bravery shown at the Battle of Puebla, we also recognize the contributions of Mexican Americans to our country as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will try and be brief. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his leadership on this, particularly since this is the last year that he will be in the Senate. I have had the great privilege of working with him now for 12 years on the centrist coalition and in other endeavors. He has always strived to bring parties together and to work across the aisle. Frankly, it is something that I admire and I want him to know that. The underlying bill, as I understand it, allows companies to bring foreign-earned profits back at a greatly reduced rate. The Senator from Louisiana spelled that out. That is a rate of 5.25 percent. Remember, the minimum income tax bracket for individuals in this country is 10 percent. So it is at a rate half of what the poorest Americans pay in Federal income taxes. Under this amendment, companies could bring foreign-earned profits back to the U.S. at this reduced rate provided these repatriated profits promote job growth and benefit employees. Our amendment is specific. It allows for spending on R&D, acquiring plants and equipment, deducting increases in wages or the cost of creating a new job--capped at the Social Security wage limit of $87,900--and fully funding employee retirement plans. Why is it necessary to be so specific? It is necessary because J.P. Morgan, which has conducted a survey of companies that would repatriate money, determined that most corporations will reuse the repatriated profits for buying back debt, for increasing levels of liquid assets, or even retiring equity. This is what a study of the very companies that are involved have shown. None of these items necessarily produces new jobs. One of the things the Senate, as well as Americans, should understand is that there are a large number of American companies that take advantage of loopholes in U.S. tax law and pay no taxes. I recently took a look at a GAO study entitled ``Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign and United States Controlled Corporations.'' It covers the period from 1996 to 2000. Let me give you an idea of what they find: 61 percent of U.S.-controlled corporations pay no taxes; 71 percent of foreign-owned corporations operating in the United States reported no tax liability from 1996 to 2000. This is stunning. I had no idea. So I began to look a little bit at the history. Let me tell you a little bit about what it was like in 1945. In 1945, income taxes from corporations accounted for 35 percent of Federal receipts. In 1970, these income taxes accounted for only 17 percent of Federal revenue. So between 1945 and 1970 there was a dramatic decline. Today, corporate income taxes account for only 7.8 percent of Federal revenues. We are giving companies that have sequestered profits abroad the ability to bring those profits back at one-half the tax rate the poorest American pays, and we have a specific study that shows that for the most part, these corporations will not use these moneys for areas that produce jobs. What Senator Breaux and I have tried to do is to narrow the language that describes what companies may spend repatriated profits on. We have narrowed the language to specific spending categories--categories which produce jobs. I don't think that is too much to ask. How much will be repatriated? There are various estimates. J.P. Morgan estimates $300 billion be repatriated. The U.S. Treasury estimates it will be between $200 and $300 billion. The Homeland Investment Act Coalition, a coalition of major corporations, estimates $500 billion will come back to the United States. Without this amendment, it is likely that corporations will take advantage of the reduced corporation tax rate and use the repatriated profits to shore up their finances. The items I have read from the J.P. Morgan study indicate just that. I will summarize the section of this J.P. Morgan study. These were 28 firms in the study. They indicated that 46 percent of them would pay down outstanding debt with the money, 39 percent would finance capital spending, 39 percent would fund R&D venture capital or acquisition, 18 percent would buy back stock, 11 percent would use cash for working capital, 11 percent might pay dividends if double taxation ends, and 4 percent would fund underfunded pension funds. I have been told many of these companies would like to use the money for mergers and acquisitions, which very clearly could result in a reduction in jobs. I would not like to see this Senate have egg on its face by giving some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America the ability to repatriate funds at one-half the tax rate the poorest Americans pay and have those funds used for mergers and acquisitions which would result in employees being fired for so-called efficiency reasons. I think without this language that narrows the use of this money, that is exactly what could happen. So I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his leadership. I want to indicate my strong support for this amendment. I hope Members will vote for this amendment. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last year the White House proposed redefining the job descriptions of millions of workers and thus eliminating their right to Federal overtime protection. After several in this Chamber raised serious concerns over such a change, the administration released final rules that make significant, but insufficient, changes to those draft rules. Left alone, these rules will take affect later this year. I support the Harkin amendment because it is sensible and protects hardworking employees. The amendment simply prevents the White House from implementing changes in existing overtime laws that reduce the number of jobs protected by those laws. The stated objective of the administration is to increase worker protection. This being the case, I would think this amendment would be an easy accommodation for the President to make. However, if the numbers of the Department of Labor are correct, then more the 117,000 individuals could lose overtime protection. If they are wrong, it could be millions. These rule changes would wipe out overtime pay protections and increase work hours. In California alone, several hundred thousand workers could lose their Federal overtime protection. However, State law will continue to protect most workers from the deleterious effects of this rule change. But some public employees and many in the film industry won't be so lucky. Although most workers in California will maintain their right to overtime through protections granted by State law, the rule change represents a movement in the wrong direction when it comes to enhancing worker protections. As we all know, losing overtime pay protections would also result in huge pay cuts for many workers. This is an issue of fairness. Our workers are more productive then ever and yet President Bush feels that it is necessary to penalize those very individuals who have literally built this Nation. Those hurt most will be disproportionately women and minority. They will be mostly middle and lower income. They will be struggling to make ends meet and they will be worrying about paying the mortgage. Given the still high unemployment rate and the uncertainty still plaguing our economy, this is not the time to be making it harder for workers; rather, it is a time when we should be helping all workers achieve fairness in the workplace. It is well known that by requiring companies to respect the 40-hour work week, we encourage businesses to hire additional workers. With more than 8 million people still out of work, we should continue to encourage companies to maximize employment while respecting the workforce they have. I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his comments and for his leadership. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to comment for a couple of minutes on the discussion that was had with Senator McCain, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Wyden and the concern here of the telecommunications taxes which have been exempted from the bill--in other words, those that have always been a legitimate source of revenue raising. I have an Ernst & Young study going back to 1999 that shows, for example, in the taxes collected by California in the year 1999, on telecommunications transaction taxes, the amount was $802 million. It doesn't say which precise taxes those are. This is the depth of this problem. This is not a small problem. What bothers me is we are moving on without really knowing. The finance officers of the larger cities of California tell me one thing. The Senator from Arizona believes that is not correct and says the intention of the bill is not, in fact, to make these non-DSL telecommunications services tax-exempt. I would like to ask the Senator from Arizona.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This would come off Senator McCain's time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have sent a modification to the desk to amendment No. 3052.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the discussion. The discussion shows how rapidly we are doing something about all the ramifications we may not know. This concerns me greatly. This amendment is a simple amendment. It simply extends the grandfather clause and secures the telecommunications areas for those cities and States that have been using this methodology for revenue raising for years. In California, in 1999, the amount was $802 million that came from this area. For Los Angeles, in 1 year it is $40 million. I hope Members of this body would be willing to move the 2-year grandfather clause to 4 years. This gives an opportunity for this to be sorted out. There is a Ninth Circuit Court opinion affecting DSL and cable. No one knows how that will sort itself out because it just came out a few weeks ago. The legislation may well be affected by it. All I am asking is, make the grandfather clauses in both areas even. Raise the 2-year in this one--which affects the local exchange of telecommunications--to 4 years. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That would be fine.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, three law enforcement officers in the State of California have been murdered in the past three weeks in gang- related slayings. And a fourth was killed in February. I come to the floor to pay tribute to these brave officers and discuss the perils police face every day, especially from gang members armed with high-powered assault weapons and other guns. Late Saturday night, April 10, one of San Francisco's finest young police officers, Officer Isaac Espinoza, was shot and killed. Officer Espinoza was gunned down with an assault weapon, an AK-47, taking three shots in the back as the gunman fired 15 rounds in just seconds. Officer Espinoza and his partner, who was also shot, had no time to seek refuge. The suspect in the shootings is a known gang member. Officer Espinoza, at 29 years of age, was a distinguished police officer, one of the Department's bright young stars who worked in one of the City's toughest areas. In fact, Officer Espinoza received three major service awards in his eight years with the Department including: the Silver Medal of Valor for his bravery in a shoot-out that occurred on October, 20, 2000; the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in a foot pursuit as he and his partner attempted to make a drug arrest on May 5, 2002; and the Police Commission Commendation for his work to reduce crime in the Bayview neighborhood. He was also recognized as Patrol Officer of the Month by the Captain of the Bayview Police Station in June 2003. Officer Espinoza also served as a new board member of the Police Officers Association. He was Assistant Commissioner of the softball league. And he planned to take the next Sergeant's exam. His death is a great loss to the Department and to the City. It is a particularly great loss to his wife and 3-year-old daughter. On April 15, Merced Police Officer Stephan Gray was shot and killed when a suspect he was chasing on foot turned around and fired two bullets into his chest. Officer Gray, 34 years of age, worked in the Merced Police Department's gang violence unit, working with some of his community's most dangerous offenders. In fact, the suspect in his killing is a gang member with whom he is believed to have had previous encounters. Officer Gray had served with the Merced Police Department for seven years. And in those seven years of service, he earned the admiration of his colleagues and once received a commendation for resuscitating an 11-month old baby. Being a police officer was not just a job for Officer Gray, it was a way for him to change the world. He not only patrolled the streets, but he went out and got to know the neighborhood children in the communities he served. He shot baskets with the kids and, drawing on his days as a high school track star, taught them how to sprint. He was admired by his friends and neighbors for his loyalty to the police department, but also his devotion to his family. Officer Gray was a true pillar of his community. He is survived by his wife and three children, ages 13, 5, and 3. California Highway Patrol Officer Thomas Steiner, 35 years old, was murdered April 21 in a drive-by shooting in broad daylight. Officer Steiner had just walked out of the Pomona courthouse after testifying on a series of traffic cases when a 16-year-old shot him three times with a handgun, hitting him once in the head. According to Pomona Police Chief James Lewis, the teenager charged with the shooting did not know Officer Steiner, but was merely intent on ``killing a cop.'' Apparently, the 16-year-old wanted to kill a cop in an attempt to prove himself to a Pomona street gang. Officer Steiner had been a member of the California Highway Patrol since 1999. His colleagues described him as a positive influence on the police force, the kind of guy who never had anything bad to say about anyone. On top of being a well-respected cop, he was an excellent marksman and an avid sports fan. Officer Steiner is survived by his wife, his 13-year-old stepson, and his three-year old son. These three killings occurred in an 11-day period in April. They are but the latest deaths to report. Two months ago, Los Angeles Police Officer Ricardo Lizzaraga was killed while responding to a domestic violence call. At the apartment where the call originated, Officer Lizarraga confronted a man. Within seconds, the individual drew a gun and shot Lizarraga twice in the back as he and his fellow officers fled from the apartment. The suspect in the shooting was a known gang member. Officer Lizarraga, 31, had served two-and-a half years on the force. In that time, he quickly became a well-respected police officer known for his strong work ethic and great attention to detail. He was viewed as a gentle giant by his colleagues, friends and family. Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton described him as the ``face of Los Angeles.'' Officer Lizarraga is survived by his wife Joyce. These stories are chilling. They remind us that even those charged with protecting us are vulnerable. They reveal a segment of society that is utterly lawless, unbound by any code of decency. And sadly, they are just a few of the stories that we will tell this year of cops being killed in the line of duty. These tragic deaths are sure to continue because we have not done enough to stem the availability of guns nor curb the viciousness of gangs. This body knows well that the assault weapons ban is on the verge of expiration. However, what this Congress has failed to recognize is that if we allow assault weapons to be more freely available, law enforcement officers will be in even greater danger. Around 70 officers are killed each year by criminals. And, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center, 1 in 5 law enforcement officers killed between 1998 and 2001 were shot with assault weapons. Now, police officers in San Francisco and other cities are exploring whether to equip officers with military-style assault rifles and Kevlar-plated vests. And that's why nearly every law enforcement organization in the country supports renewing the ban on assault weapons--they know that the lives of their officers are at risk. The expiration of the ban would mean that assault weapons like the one used to kill Officer Isaac Espinoza will be easier to obtain whether at the nearest gun shop, sporting goods store or in someone's home. The easier it is for criminals to get their hands on these weapons, the easier it will be for them to terrorize communities. To honor the many law enforcement officers who have given their lives in service to their communities, we must renew the assault weapons ban before it expires on September 13. But there is much more that we need to do to make communities and cops safer in America. In particular, we must check the rampant gang violence that plagues our city streets and, increasingly, our suburbs and rural communities. Gang violence used to be a local problem, demanding local solutions. But over the last 12 years, since I have been in the Senate, I have seen this problem spread from isolated neighborhoods to communities across this country. Gangs have become more sophisticated and more violent criminal enterprises. What were once loosely-organized groups centered around dealing drugs within a particular neighborhood are now complex criminal organizations whose activities include weapons trafficking, gambling, smuggling, robbery, and, of course, homicide. In 2002, over half of the 1,228 homicides committed in Los Angeles County were gang-related. Similarly, over half of the 499 murders committed in the city of Los Angeles during 2003 were the result of gang violence. The reach of gangs, however, extends far beyond Southern California. In fact, Los Angeles serves as a ``source city'' whose gang members migrate to other communities across the country and set up new criminal entities. One such operation, the L.A.-based 18th Street Gang, is known to have initiated gang activities all over California, in Southwest border and Pacific Northwest states, and in East Coast states including New Jersey and New York. Today's gangs are more sophisticated, more violent, and more numerous than they were 12 years ago. And that is why we need a strong federal response. I have introduced legislation with Senator Hatch that will give law enforcement and local communities the tools to deal with gang violence. Our legislation: Creates new federal crimes to enable prosecutors to target violent gang members; makes changes to current law to allow for effective prosecution for violent street gang crimes; authorizes $650 million for law enforcement and community groups for suppression, prevention, and intervention programs. This bill gives us an opportunity to do something about the gang violence that beleaguers our communities and endangers our cops. We owe it to these fine officers who were killed so viciously to do what we can to prevent more violence by gangs. If we fail to act on both these measures, I am sad to say that I will be back here before long telling the story of some other fine law enforcement officer who is patrolling the streets of one of our communities right now. We must do everything possible to prevent these killings from happening over and over again.