Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like an opportunity to talk with the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Ohio, and the Senator from Delaware to see if we can work something out that might meet the concern of the Senator from Oregon.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 3 minutes of my time to Senator Alexander.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is not the issue. The issue is the local exchange and because of the particular ``proposition 13'' situation where local revenues are so restricted, property taxes are so restricted, it is extraordinarily difficult. So utility user taxes, local exchange taxes actually play a substantial role in some smaller cities' budgets. That is just a fact. Los Angeles, the biggest city, a city with a lot of problems, a city with a big gang population, needs a lot of police. Some of that police force is actually funded from this local exchange money, which totals $40 million a year. I yield time to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. May I ask how much time he would like.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to be sure the record is correct. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Oregon. He knows I respect him and enjoy working with him. There is no problem there. Let me make sure the record is correct. California's cities do not tax DSL. We are not one of the 27 states.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, essentially, this is a one-line amendment. It takes page 5 of the bill and strikes the date 2005 and inserts 2007. Essentially, this amendment makes both grandfather clauses in the bill 4-years in duration. This would mean no new taxes for the industry that is concerned, and the cities and counties would not lose the revenue they currently receive, for at least 4 years. I want to say again--I said this yesterday--not one single California company that supports this bill has contacted me, but I have heard from representatives of 478 cities in the State saying: Please, don't do this. It may well be because in California, local jurisdictions have very limited revenue sources. It is either the property tax or a small amount of sales tax or if they have a hotel tax, but there are not many tax vehicles. So utility user taxes, as well as telephone taxes, have for many cities been a critical part of their budget, for some up to 15 percent. That is just a fact. California may be an anomaly. Maybe I know this because I have been a mayor for 9 years and a county supervisor for 9 years. This would affect telecommunications services, taxes that have been in place since the old moratorium was enacted, particularly local exchange. For the city of Los Angeles, whose chief administrative officer, William Fujioka, has said his city could lose $40 million a year if local exchange service is not protected. So this grandfather clause to the largest city in my State is worth $40 million a year of taxes that have been levied, of revenues that are counted upon to balance the budget. Senator Inouye joins me in cosponsoring this amendment, as do Senator Carper, Senator Alexander, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Hollings. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to say to hard-pressed cities and counties that you have 4 years to find other revenue sources or make the necessary cuts. This does not have to be done immediately. None of the companies who benefit from this bill are suffering. As a matter of fact, most of them are doing very well. It is the cities that have the hard time funding police officers, funding firefighters, and it is not easy. Nearly every city in the State of California has a deficit and is losing revenues. I cannot just stand here on the floor of the Senate and let this happen because I have news for everybody: Where people want their services is on the local level. Some say: Oh, no, this will not happen. But when you ask the technical analysts and the attorneys of these communities whether it will happen, they say yes. I very much appreciate the change that was made in the Voice Over Internet Protocol language of the bill. This goes a long way. I very much appreciate the 4-year grandfather clause given for Internet access. That goes a further distance. There is this 2-year grandfather for those who use DSL or these local exchanges--and I do not understand why one is 4 years and the other is 2 years. I do not understand why these companies cannot wait 4 years before they are going to end up socking it to the cities. It may be that in some States this is not the case. I know it is the case in my State. Again, I am very pleased to be joined by Senators Inouye, Alexander, Carper, Voinovich, and Hollings as cosponsors of this amendment. It seems to me to make sense. It seems a compromise which for the proponents should be relatively easy to make. I think it will make a big difference to the cities of California. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might respond to that question through the Chair, we have worked with a group--the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Tennessee--all along on this. I don't know the particular situation of their States. I don't know whether they tax DSL. I do know that the bill exempts telecommunications, and telecommunications has been a legitimate source of revenue which is now affected by this grandfather clause. Obviously, if I could get half a loaf for my State, I do not want to sell out those whom I have been working with over the last week.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Arizona for their words. I had hoped to join them on the floor earlier, but I was in the Judiciary Committee. So I am very pleased to be able to be here now to say a few words in support of this effort. I first became involved in the Burmese, or Myanmar, dilemma back in 1995-1996 with then-Senator William Cohen, and we offered some legislation at that time. So we have had the opportunity to follow this situation. I then worked with Senator McConnell a year ago on this legislation. And now I am very pleased to support the renewal of the sanctions imposed on Burma by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. Last year, in response to a brutal and vicious coordinated assault by progovernment paramilitary thugs on members of the National League for Democracy (NLD), and the arrest and detention of NLD's leader, the Nobel Peace Price winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed this act. The purpose was to impose a complete import ban on products from Burma. Working together, the Congress and the administration demonstrated our determination to put pressure on the ruling State Peace and Development Council--that is the military junta formerly known as the SLORC--to release Suu Kyi, and also to respect the 1990 elections decisively won by the National League for Democracy party in Burma and put Burma on an irreversible path of national reconciliation and democracy. One year later, it is clear that the SPDC has failed to make substantial and measurable progress toward implementing a democratic government to have those sanctions lifted. The junta has failed. The world has condemned the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. They have called for her unconditional release. She still remains under house arrest. NLD Vice-Chairman U Tin Oo also remains in custody. Last August, the junta proposed a seven-point ``roadmap'' to democracy. That included a national convention to take place the following month to draft a new constitution. Yet there is no timetable for restoration of democracy, no assurance that the junta will give up power, and no meaningful participation for Suu Kyi and her party. Numerous human rights abuses, including torture, forced labor, rape, and sex trafficking continue unabated. The most recent State Department report indicates that: The Government's extremely poor human rights record worsened [in 2003] and it continued to commit numerous abuses. Recently, the junta sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for one thing: for meeting with representatives of the ILO, the International Labor Organization. That is how repressive this regime is. If you meet with an organization not favored by the government, you could be sentenced to death. Mr. President, 1,300 political prisoners are still in jail, many of them elected parliamentarians. According to the State Department, three political prisoners died in custody last year. The government engages in the production and distribution of opium and methamphetamine. The Thai-sponsored ``Bangkok Process''--designed to mediate a solution to the political situation in Burma--collapsed after one meeting with the SPDC's refusal to attend further sessions with ``like- minded'' countries. The regime said it was ``too busy'' to attend this week's session. For years, we have been working with ASEAN nations to put pressure on the military junta to make changes. But these nations were reluctant to do so. The Thailand-sponsored Bangkok Process aimed to do the same thing. However, what is clear is that the military junta has ignored those efforts. So over the past several months, the regime has gone to great lengths to rehabilitate its standing with neighbors and the international community. Some thought this was evidence that the junta was committed to national reconciliation, that engagement works, and that the sanctions and other pressures on Rangoon should be eased to facilitate the implementation of this new roadmap. But I think they are mistaken because I think we have learned something now about this regime's intentions. So what we need is substantive and meaningful action, not more promises and empty statements and failure to deliver on commitments. For over 15 years, this junta has engaged in a systematic campaign to wipe out the democratic movement in Burma and the NLD's 1990 election victory. For over 15 years, we have listened to assurances that the junta was committed to national reconciliation and a dialog with all parties on restoring democracy, and still nothing has happened. I was actually cautiously optimistic when Suu Kyi was first released from house arrest 2 years ago. Yet sure enough, 1 year later, she was back in custody. The regime showed its true colors in orchestrating and carrying out a brutal attack. After her release, Aung San Suu Kyi had gone on the road. She was greeted with enormous popularity. The junta's forces attacked her caravan. Many of her people were killed; many were arrested; and she was shoved back into house arrest for doing nothing more than what she was elected originally to do. So whatever the regime might say about ``roadmaps'' and ``national conventions,'' their actions have clearly demonstrated they are uninterested in restoring democracy to the Burmese people and, more importantly, they are going to take any steps they can to hold on to power. Even if, as we all hope, Aung San Suu Kyi is released and is invited to take part in a national convention, I think we should maintain the pressure on this junta and keep the sanctions in place. Now, earlier this week, the junta allowed members of the NLD, the democratic party, to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi to discuss their participation at the convention. But this is hardly progress. ``Substantial and measurable'' progress is just that, and we should not settle for lofty pronouncements when they have a record of breaking their word on virtually every statement they have made. So I am very pleased that Secretary of State Colin Powell has testified that the administration supports reauthorizing the sanctions. He recently stated: I have seen no improvement in the situation. Aung San Suu Kyi remains unable to participate in public political life in Burma, and we will not ignore that. We will not shrink from the strong position we have taken. So now is not the time to reduce our support for this brave leader. Now is the time to stand with her side by side, to buttress her, to reinforce her, to point out, over and over again that she is the elected democratic leader of that country; now is the time to show the SPDC that America is not going to stand by and see members of the parliament jailed, not going to stand by and see her people continually attacked, and not going to stand by and see every promise the junta made violated. So I feel very strongly and am very pleased to join with the distinguished Senators from Kentucky and Arizona in supporting this extension legislation. S.J. Res. 36 Whereas the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has failed to make substantial and measurable progress toward implementing a democratic government in Burma; Whereas the courage and determination of the people of Burma in their struggle for freedom and justice remains steadfast and strong; Whereas import sanctions and other restrictions against the SPDC and its affiliated entities should remain in force until Burma embarks on an irreversible path of reconciliation that includes the full and unfettered participation of the National League for Democracy and ethnic minorities in the country; and Whereas the Department of State supports the continuation of sanctions against the SPDC: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in section 3(a)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Arizona for their words. I had hoped to join them on the floor earlier, but I was in the Judiciary Committee. So I am very pleased to be able to be here now to say a few words in support of this effort. I first became involved in the Burmese, or Myanmar, dilemma back in 1995-1996 with then-Senator William Cohen, and we offered some legislation at that time. So we have had the opportunity to follow this situation. I then worked with Senator McConnell a year ago on this legislation. And now I am very pleased to support the renewal of the sanctions imposed on Burma by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. Last year, in response to a brutal and vicious coordinated assault by progovernment paramilitary thugs on members of the National League for Democracy (NLD), and the arrest and detention of NLD's leader, the Nobel Peace Price winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed this act. The purpose was to impose a complete import ban on products from Burma. Working together, the Congress and the administration demonstrated our determination to put pressure on the ruling State Peace and Development Council--that is the military junta formerly known as the SLORC--to release Suu Kyi, and also to respect the 1990 elections decisively won by the National League for Democracy party in Burma and put Burma on an irreversible path of national reconciliation and democracy. One year later, it is clear that the SPDC has failed to make substantial and measurable progress toward implementing a democratic government to have those sanctions lifted. The junta has failed. The world has condemned the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. They have called for her unconditional release. She still remains under house arrest. NLD Vice-Chairman U Tin Oo also remains in custody. Last August, the junta proposed a seven-point ``roadmap'' to democracy. That included a national convention to take place the following month to draft a new constitution. Yet there is no timetable for restoration of democracy, no assurance that the junta will give up power, and no meaningful participation for Suu Kyi and her party. Numerous human rights abuses, including torture, forced labor, rape, and sex trafficking continue unabated. The most recent State Department report indicates that: The Government's extremely poor human rights record worsened [in 2003] and it continued to commit numerous abuses. Recently, the junta sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for one thing: for meeting with representatives of the ILO, the International Labor Organization. That is how repressive this regime is. If you meet with an organization not favored by the government, you could be sentenced to death. Mr. President, 1,300 political prisoners are still in jail, many of them elected parliamentarians. According to the State Department, three political prisoners died in custody last year. The government engages in the production and distribution of opium and methamphetamine. The Thai-sponsored ``Bangkok Process''--designed to mediate a solution to the political situation in Burma--collapsed after one meeting with the SPDC's refusal to attend further sessions with ``like- minded'' countries. The regime said it was ``too busy'' to attend this week's session. For years, we have been working with ASEAN nations to put pressure on the military junta to make changes. But these nations were reluctant to do so. The Thailand-sponsored Bangkok Process aimed to do the same thing. However, what is clear is that the military junta has ignored those efforts. So over the past several months, the regime has gone to great lengths to rehabilitate its standing with neighbors and the international community. Some thought this was evidence that the junta was committed to national reconciliation, that engagement works, and that the sanctions and other pressures on Rangoon should be eased to facilitate the implementation of this new roadmap. But I think they are mistaken because I think we have learned something now about this regime's intentions. So what we need is substantive and meaningful action, not more promises and empty statements and failure to deliver on commitments. For over 15 years, this junta has engaged in a systematic campaign to wipe out the democratic movement in Burma and the NLD's 1990 election victory. For over 15 years, we have listened to assurances that the junta was committed to national reconciliation and a dialog with all parties on restoring democracy, and still nothing has happened. I was actually cautiously optimistic when Suu Kyi was first released from house arrest 2 years ago. Yet sure enough, 1 year later, she was back in custody. The regime showed its true colors in orchestrating and carrying out a brutal attack. After her release, Aung San Suu Kyi had gone on the road. She was greeted with enormous popularity. The junta's forces attacked her caravan. Many of her people were killed; many were arrested; and she was shoved back into house arrest for doing nothing more than what she was elected originally to do. So whatever the regime might say about ``roadmaps'' and ``national conventions,'' their actions have clearly demonstrated they are uninterested in restoring democracy to the Burmese people and, more importantly, they are going to take any steps they can to hold on to power. Even if, as we all hope, Aung San Suu Kyi is released and is invited to take part in a national convention, I think we should maintain the pressure on this junta and keep the sanctions in place. Now, earlier this week, the junta allowed members of the NLD, the democratic party, to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi to discuss their participation at the convention. But this is hardly progress. ``Substantial and measurable'' progress is just that, and we should not settle for lofty pronouncements when they have a record of breaking their word on virtually every statement they have made. So I am very pleased that Secretary of State Colin Powell has testified that the administration supports reauthorizing the sanctions. He recently stated: I have seen no improvement in the situation. Aung San Suu Kyi remains unable to participate in public political life in Burma, and we will not ignore that. We will not shrink from the strong position we have taken. So now is not the time to reduce our support for this brave leader. Now is the time to stand with her side by side, to buttress her, to reinforce her, to point out, over and over again that she is the elected democratic leader of that country; now is the time to show the SPDC that America is not going to stand by and see members of the parliament jailed, not going to stand by and see her people continually attacked, and not going to stand by and see every promise the junta made violated. So I feel very strongly and am very pleased to join with the distinguished Senators from Kentucky and Arizona in supporting this extension legislation. S.J. Res. 36 Whereas the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has failed to make substantial and measurable progress toward implementing a democratic government in Burma; Whereas the courage and determination of the people of Burma in their struggle for freedom and justice remains steadfast and strong; Whereas import sanctions and other restrictions against the SPDC and its affiliated entities should remain in force until Burma embarks on an irreversible path of reconciliation that includes the full and unfettered participation of the National League for Democracy and ethnic minorities in the country; and Whereas the Department of State supports the continuation of sanctions against the SPDC: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in section 3(a)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address what I consider a large and serious issue--U.S. nuclear weapons policy--and update the Senate on what has been happening. In particular, I am concerned about the apparent reopening of the nuclear door by the United States and the further research and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. I serve as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, on both the Energy and Water and Defense Subcommittees, and have had an opportunity to participate in the committee and conference debates on this issue. Despite earlier claims to the contrary, by all appearances the Bush Administration is seeking to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. This includes both the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which is a 100-kiloton ``bunker buster'', and so-called Advanced Concepts, which translate into low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons, below 5 kilotons. The first hints of this policy came in the administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review--which was leaked to the press in early 2002. The review cited the need to develop a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons, blurring the lines between conventional and nuclear forces. According to press reports, it named seven countries against which it would consider launching a nuclear first strike: North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia, China, and Russia. And it proposed a ``new triad,'' in which nuclear and conventional weapons co-exist along the same continuum. This blurs the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and suggests that they could be used as offensive weapons. Subsequently, in the Defense Authorization Bill last year the Administration sought, and ultimately obtained permission, to repeal the 10-year old Spratt-Furse Amendment, which prohibited research to develop a low-yield, less than 5 kiloton, nuclear weapon. Spratt-Furse has served as a ``brake'' on nuclear weapons development for the past decade. Now, it is gone. I argued against the repeal of Spratt-Furse on the floor, and working with Senator Kennedy, I offered an amendment to maintain it. Unfortunately, we did not prevail. What really concerns me is that, throughout all of this, the Administration continues to deny their intention to develop new nuclear weapons. For example, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, in a Washington Post op-ed on July 21, 2003, stated: ``. . . we are not planning to develop any new nuclear weapons at all.'' And Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in response to a question I asked him at a Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on May 14, 2003, stated that the work the Administration was undertaking was ``just a study'', and that there were no plans to build new weapons. This defies credibility. Well, if one really wants to know what is happening, the best thing to do is to track where the Administration is asking for and spending money. And when you do, you find that the administration is putting major resources into researching new nuclear weapons. For instance, last year's budget request included: $15 million for the study of the development of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator; $6 million in funding for Advanced Nuclear Weapons Concepts, including the study for development of low-yield, battlefield weapons; $24 million to increase the Nevada Test Site's time-to-test readiness posture from the current 36 months to 18 months; and, $22 million for site selection for the Modern Pit Facility, which is a facility to build nuclear triggers for our Nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons. This would be a $4 billion plant to make up to 450 new ``pits'' per year, some of which could be designed for new weapons. Four-hundred-and-fifty pits is larger than China's entire nuclear arsenal, so this production capacity raises questions about the number of weapons the Administration wants in the U.S. arsenal. Currently, the United States has approximately 15,000 warheads. Under the Moscow Treaty, the U.S. is to decrease its strategic nuclear force to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads by 2012. To maintain a 2,200 warhead nuclear force at replacement level, we would only need to build 50 pits a year, not 450. Fifty pits a year can be handled at Los Alamos. So why build a new facility, with a production capacity of 450 pits a year? This country doesn't need that much production unless plans are underway to increase the size of our nuclear arsenal, including a new generation of nuclear weapons. Last year, those of us opposed to developing tactical nuclear weapons did have some success in limiting these programs. Working with others in the House and Senate, we managed to: cut the funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator in half, to $7.5 million; condition $4 million of the $6 million for Advanced Concepts on further reporting and planning on Stockpile Stewardship; and contain spending on the Modern Pit Facility to $10 million, a $12 million reduction. Critically, we also managed to win passage of a requirement that any move to develop a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator further than the 6.2A phase require a specific congressional authorization. As many of my colleagues know, there is a formal set of phases by which new and modified nuclear weapons move through research, development, production, deployment, and retirement. As a recent CRS report states, ``The Key phases for Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator are: phase 6.2, feasibility study and down select; phase 6.2A, design definition and cost study; phase 6.3, development engineering in which the nuclear weapons labs produce a completed warhead design; and phase 6.4, production engineering, in which the design is a adopted for production and a system to manufacture the weapon is created.'' So when the administration wants to move beyond 6.2A to 6.3 and into the development engineering phase, they need specific Congressional authorization. Continuing its efforts, the administration came back this year and asked for significantly more funding for research into new nuclear weapons. Indeed, the administration's budget requests before Congress this year total some $96.5 million, and makes it clear that there are those in this administration who are deadly serious about the development and deployment of a new generation of nuclear weapons. The administration's FY 2005 budget request calls for: $27.5 million for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator; $9 million for Advanced Concepts Initiative, which includes so-called ``low yield'' weapons (under 5 kilotons); and $30 million for the Modern Pit Facility. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The Congressional Research Service now reports that the administration's own long-term budget plans, including $485 million for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator between 2005 and 2009, ``cast doubt'' on the contention that the study of new nuclear weapons are, in fact, only a study. This ramp-up in funding can mean one thing: the administration is determined to develop and deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons. Yes, the administration is seeking to re-open the nuclear door and is seeking more ``usable'' nuclear weapons: The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, for use in launching first strikes to reach deeply embedded command bunkers; and Tactical nuclear weapons, for possible use on the battlefield. The logic of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, for instance, is that there are certain scenarios in which the United States could need a nuclear weapon to destroy deeply buried targets--such as command bunkers--which could not be effectively targeted by conventional weapons. The goal would be to develop a weapon that could burrow into the earth deep enough so that it would be ``antiseptic'', with fallout contained deep beneath the surface, 500-1000 feet below the surface. There are three problems with this: First, a casing that can drill down 800-1000 feet before the warhead explodes does not exist. While the U.S. has technologically sophisticated missiles, there is no such casing at this time. Second, advanced conventional munitions can shut down air vents, cut- off electricity, and render these targets harmless. Third, and most critically, it is not possible to contain the radioactive fallout from these weapons--and the radioactive fallout is enormous. According to Stanford University physicist Sidney Drell, even a one- kiloton weapon detonated 20-50 feet underground would dig a crater the size of ground zero and eject a million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is a 100 megaton weapon, so magnify that by 100-fold. You would need to burrow more than 800 feet into the earth before the weapon exploded in order to contain the fallout from the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The maximum feasible depth we can bury a warhead into the earth today is about 35 feet. Use of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator would be a cataclysm of the highest order. Using one might well take out a buried North Korean bunker, but would also kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands in both North and South Korea and, depending on wind patterns, either China and Japan as well. So the idea that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator would provide the United States with a usable nuclear weapon--perhaps even a weapon that would be an effective first strike weapon--is absurd. Furthermore, it represents a major departure from U.S. policy and makes our nation less safe--not more. This is in fact part of the administration's broader policy in the international arena that can best be summed up in two words: Arrogant unilateralism. This administration has: engaged in unnecessarily belligerent unilateralist rhetoric and action; dismissed arms control and nonproliferation efforts as ineffective; emphasized the role of pre- emptive military action; and pursued new nuclear weapon capabilities. The administration is sending the destabilizing message that nuclear weapons have utility, thereby encouraging the proliferation the United States seeks to prevent. Instead, I believe that the United States' top priority for nuclear security should be preventing the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the means to deliver them. Leading non-proliferation efforts and actions, and convincing the world to follow, that's how the world will be safer today and safer tomorrow. U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy: I am not a supporter of unilateral disarmament. I am a supporter of treaties, agreements, and programs with strong enforcement and interdiction programs to accomplish multi- lateral disarmament. I believe that this Nation should always be in a position to protect itself, with a strong military, and the most advanced technology available to that military. But I believe that moving ahead with these programs is folly. First, who would want to send their son or daughter to a battlefield with tactical nuclear weapons? Second, under what circumstances would a President push the ``Red Button'' for a nuclear first strike that would launch a nuclear missile of 100 kilotons, 4 or 5 times more devastating than Hiroshima, which killed 140,000 in just the first four months after the Bomb was dropped. The United States has the most advanced conventional strike forces in the world. We have conventional bombs that can burrow into the earth and deliver thousands of pounds of explosives. If the United States develops new nuclear weapons, what do we think India will do? If the United States develops new nuclear weapons, what do we think Pakistan will do? And what about Iran and North Korea? Does this encourage them to develop battlefield nuclear weapons? I believe it does. This administration is placing too great an emphasis on efforts to develop and deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons. This is the wrong policy and, in my view, will only cause America to be placed in greater jeopardy in the future. What should be done? First, Congress should cut the funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and Advanced Concepts entirely. Second, Congress should close an inadvertent loophole that appears to allow the Administration to go forward with design engineering of low- yield or other Advanced Concepts weapons, but requires specific Congressional action for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. Congress should put the same restrictions on Advance Systems that are required for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator--and require specific Congressional authorization for design engineering and development of battlefield nuclear weapons. I will propose such an amendment most likely in mark-up or Conference Committee. Third, Congress should postpone funding for the Modern Pit Facility until we receive a joint laboratory report that will include the finds of ``accelerated aging'' experiment, due in 2006, Although it is true that the pits in current U.S. warheads are expected to slowly deteriorate as they age--and at some point will need to be replaced if the warheads are to remain in the stockpile--until that study is completed we simply have insufficient data to measure either the urgency by which pits need to be replaced or how many pits a year the United States needs to be able to manufacture to meet replacement needs. Finally, Congress should deny any funding for new nuclear weapons until the reports we are awaiting justify these programs, including: The report on stockpile stewardship required by last year's Energy and Water bill and which is intended to help inform decision making; and, A formal report that spells out the specific military necessity of any of these new weapons. Usually, the military requirements for a specific weapons system--nuclear or nonnuclear are provided before well before funds are provided for design engineering. These steps are necessary to bring this administration's unrestrained enthusiasm for developing new nuclear weapons under control, and assure that the United States proceeds in this area with all the seriousness and restraint that is fitting for a great power. Now, I want to take a moment to say what I believe the United States should be doing with regard to nuclear policy. First and foremost, the United States must work with others in the international community to address the larger nuclear non-proliferation problem. Proliferation poses a clear and present danger not only to our nation but to the world. President Bush offered a glimmer of hope two months ago, when he called for international cooperation on controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In his speech, President Bush called for: expanding efforts to obtain multilateral cooperation in interdicting land, sea and air shipments of WMD-related equipment, materials and technology. Early adoption of a U.N. Security Council resolution that would require all Nations to criminalize certain proliferation-related activities, enact strict export control regulations, and ensure adequate security for nuclear and other sensitive materials within their borders. Expansion of threat-reduction assistance programs that are designed to secure sensitive materials and prevent former weapons scientists from selling their expertise on the black market. Closing a loophole in the Nonproliferation Treaty--NPT--that has enabled countries like Iran to acquire dual-use facilities capable of producing bomb-grade plutonium under the guise of a civil nuclear energy program. Strengthening verification of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, by calling on countries to adhere to the International Atomic Energy Agency's--IAEA--Additional Protocol. The creation of a special committee of the IAEA Board to deal with verification and compliance. Ensuring that no country under investigation for violating nuclear proliferation obligations should be allowed to serve on the IAEA Board of Governors. These are important steps, but they do not amount to a comprehensive non-proliferation strategy. Building on what the President suggested, I believe the following actions are needed to implement a comprehensive approach to non- proliferation: First, the U.S. should support strengthened international monitoring and inspection capabilities, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency's Additional Protocol. The Additional Protocol is an addendum to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would expand the amount of information that Nations will have to provide the IAEA--including, the location, operational status, and production of any uranium and thorium mines. It also would expand IAEA's ability to check for clandestine nuclear facilities by providing the agency with authority to visit, on short or no notice, any facility to investigate questions or inconsistencies in a state's nuclear declarations. The Additional Protocol has now passed the Senate, and I believe that the United States must work with the IAEA to give it reality and force. Second, the U.S. and other global powers can no longer ignore the possession of nuclear weapons by allies and friends. India and Pakistan are not a direct threat to the United States, but they do threaten one another, and, as we recently learned, Pakistan has been at the hub of a global black market in nuclear technology. According to a press report last Friday, it is possible that India is now seeking to develop a low-yield nuclear weapon of less than one kiloton, following in the footsteps of the Bush administration's nuclear weapons policy. Such a move by India would likely be extremely destabilizing for Asia. We must realize that the way in which the United States and our friends and allies approach nuclear weapons has a profound impact on global security, and we must be willing to make sure that our friends, no less than states of concern, adopt a responsible approach to nuclear weapons. Third, the international community must consider new ways to restrict access to dangerous nuclear technologies. The Non-Proliferation Treaty guarantee of access to ``peaceful'' nuclear technology has allowed states such as Iran to acquire uranium enrichment or plutonium production facilities useful for weapons without adequate oversight and monitoring. I support efforts in the UN Security Council to effectively criminalize trafficking in weapons of mass destruction, and work with other nations to make sure that effective means to control the spread of any WMD technology are in place. Fourth, the United States should expand and accelerate Nunn-Lugar threat reduction programs. This initiative has helped make the United States and the world safer over the past 10 years by improving security and taking much of the Soviet era nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons arsenal and infrastructure out of circulation. Yet funding for Nunn-Lugar has remained flat at about $1 billion annually over the past several years. The bipartisan Baker-Cutler Commission proposed last year that U.S. efforts for nuclear security should be increased to $30 billion over ten years, and I believe it is critical that we increase Nunn-Lugar funding so that resources are commensurate with the challenge. Fifth, we must redouble our efforts to secure and remove all unprotected nuclear material, especially material at the world's most vulnerable sites. During the Cold War more than twenty tons of HEU were distributed around the world to research reactors and other facilities. Most of this material is poorly guarded and much is stored at extremely vulnerable sites. Along with Senators Reed, Nelson, and Levin I recently introduced legislation to give our government the direction, tools, and resources necessary to secure and remove nuclear materials from around the world in an expeditious manner by creating a single, integrated U.S. government program, with a defined budget and resources, to facilitate the removal of these materials. It is my hope that Congress will take action on this legislation soon. Sixth, the United States should work to achieve a global halt to the production of weapons usable fissile materials through the Fissile Material Cut off Treaty--FMCT. Progress on multilateral negotiations to end the supply of new material for nuclear bombs has been stalled for years. Now, a shift in China's position opens the way for progress. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has decided to reevaluate its support for such an agreement. Seventh, the United States should seek to engage in discussions with ``states of proliferation concern'' to look for ways to bring such states into the community of responsible nations. These are states that have nuclear weapons or may be pursuing them and include: India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Brazil, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Despite the administration's claim of a Libya success story, other nations appear to be drawing different conclusions from the Administration's approach on these issues. We are experiencing on-going crises involving the North Korean nuclear weapons programs, and Iran now appears to be on the verge of a nuclear weapons capability. Finally, the United States and other nuclear weapon states must reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their own thinking. For the United States to be increasing funding for the research and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons even as we are telling others that they should not pursue these weapons themselves may well provoke the very proliferation we seek to prevent. I strongly support a robust military to safeguard America's National Security interests. But I believe we will make our nation and our allies less secure--not more--if the United States opens the door to the development, testing, and deployment of new tactical and `low-yield' nuclear weapons. The administration claims that it is not seeking to develop these nuclear weapons. But I think we've seen that the facts demonstrate that this is not the case. That is why those of us who do not want the nuclear door opened need to stand firm and oppose these efforts by the administration to develop these weapons.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the victims of the Armenian Genocide, one of the great tragedies of the 20th century. Last Saturday, April 24, 2004, marked the 89th anniversary of the beginning of that tragic period and I urge all Americans to take time to remember, reflect, and pledge never to forget what happened. On April 24, 1915, under the guise of collecting supplies for its participation in World War I, the Ottoman Empire launched a brutal and unconscionable policy of mass murder. The New York Times reported that the Ottoman Empire had adopted a policy to annihilate the Armenians living within the empire. Throughout the following years, Armenians faced violent attacks, starvation, deportation, and murder. Sadly, the world took little notice. Before the violence began in 1914, 2.5 million Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire. As a result of the genocide, 1.5 million Armenians had died and another 500,000 had been driven from their homes and villages. We must remember and pay homage to those that died. We must remind the world of these deaths and renew our commitment to ensure that such tragedies never happen again. I am proud to represent an Armenian community of half a million in my great State of California. They are a strong and resilient community, taking strength in the tragedies of the past and the promise of a better tomorrow. This community is leading the effort to preserve the memory of the Armenian Genocide not only for future generations of Armenian Americans, but, indeed, for all Americans and all citizens of the world. I urge my colleagues to join me in remembering the first genocide of the 20th century. Through our commemoration of this tragedy, we make clear that we will not tolerate mass murder and ethnic cleansing ever again and we will never forget.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, we are not on the bill, is that correct?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to claim an hour under the motion to proceed to speak on the bill. Before I do, I compliment the Senator from Florida on his comments on Venezuela. He may not know this, but I had the pleasure of spending some time in Venezuela when I was mayor, leading a delegation. We had a sister city relationship with Caracas. I saw the vibrancy of that democracy at that time. This was in the mid-1980s. All the progress that had been made in the Bolivar nations and the closeness that existed between Venezuela and our country, it was something very special to see. You could say, I think, that Venezuela led all the nations in terms of its relationship to us. So the deterioration of that relationship is very much regretted by me. I associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Florida and thank him very much for making them. I wish to speak about a bill that I am not sure everybody understands very well, let alone exactly what it is. There are essentially three bills floating around. One of them is S. 150. This is a permanent measure. It includes a 3-year grandfather on Internet access if the taxes existed in 1998. That is the Allen-Wyden bill. There is a McCain proposal that may be brought forward. And, as I understand it, in would last for 4 years. It includes a 3-year grandfather on Internet access taxes that existed in 1998 and a 2-year grandfather on Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL) taxes. And there is the Alexander-Carper bill, of which I am a cosponsor. This is a 2 year temporary moratorium that includes a 2-year grandfather on Internet access taxes that were in place in 1998 and a 2-year grandfather on DSL service. What all that means is very difficult. The last time this bill was on the floor was November 6 and 7 of last year. I remember coming to the floor and saying I had been approached by more than a hundred California cities to oppose the bill. It was a deluge. I had never had that kind of opposition from California cities before in my 12 years in the Senate. That deluge has only increased. Interestingly enough, I have not received a single letter from a telephone company in support of any of these bills, which is very interesting. The most dominant voice has been the League of California Cities, firefighters, labor. The League in particular represents over 470 California cities. These cities believe this bill, S. 150, will cost billions of dollars nationwide, and in California it will cost local jurisdictions as much as $836 million once it really gets started. Cities and counties across the Nation are facing budget crises. These cuts only make the situation worse. There would be less money to pay for police officers, firefighters, libraries, and parks. Passing this bill, which essentially would end revenue streams which cities have counted on for years to fund vital services, is something I can't do. That is why you have Senator Carper, a Governor, Senator Voinovich, a former mayor and Governor, Senator Alexander, a Governor, and myself, a mayor, all saying, please don't do this. I support legislation sponsored by Senators Alexander and Carper which would extend the recently expired moratorium on Internet access by 2 years, and make the moratorium technology neutral. The Allen-Wyden bill changes the definition of Internet access significantly. That is the problem. Simply put, the definition included in the bill before us is far too broad. The bill says that telecommunications are taxable, and then it adds this: . . . except to the extent such services are used to provide Internet access. But what does the phrase ``to provide Internet access'' actually mean? Cities, counties, and States believe it means they won't be able to tax telecommunications services, which they currently can, to the tune of $2 to $9 billion annually all across the United States. So that is really what is at stake. Let me read what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says about the definition contained in Allen-Wyden: The ban on State and local taxation of telecommunications services used to provide Internet access would effectively eliminate billions of dollars' worth of taxes on voice telephone service as the provision of that service is migrated to the Internet, a process that is well underway. Then it goes on and it says there will be substantial revenue losses for State and local governments. It points out that 11 States would lose between $80 million to $120 million: Colorado, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. It says 28 States and the District of Columbia would lose $70 million annually. Let me quickly mention which ones they are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. A lot of States stand to lose. It goes on to say many more State and local governments would lose their ability to tax telecommunications services purchased by Internet access providers, such as the high-speed lines providers use to link to the backbone of the Internet. A lot of States stand to lose. Now, you can talk to authors of the bill and they will say, oh, no, that really is not true. But the fact is that even CBO cannot give you a real estimate because companies don't maintain records; but cities, interestingly enough, have retained specialists to estimate for them. Let me read from one of those specialists. His name is William T. Fujioka. He is the administrative officer for the city of Los Angeles. He points out that: In California, the utility user tax has been applied to telecommunications services on a technology-neutral basis for over 30 years. With 150 cities receiving over $830 million--I have been over that. He goes on to say: For the city of Los Angeles, our telecommunication's utility user tax covers local exchange service, long distance, and wireless, which total $260 million. S. 150 places all of these revenues in jeopardy. The loss would come from: 1, the migration of traditional telephone services to Internet-based telephone services, or Voice over Internet Protocol; and 2, the application of S. 150 to local exchange and wireless services that also provide voice and Internet access (in the same manner as DSL and cable modem), which would prevent the city of Los Angeles from taxing these services. He then goes on to point out: The migration of telecommunication services to the Internet is not just speculation. AT&T, SBC, Verizon, and Time-Warner have all announced their intent to introduce Internet telephone service in California this year. It is important to note that currently, DSL and cable modem are not subject to the Federal excise tax, or UUT, utility user tax, because until recently these broadband communication services were not used for voice and were properly deemed private communication services. Now, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has changed even that and is essentially saying that both cable and DSL can be taxed. That just came out. I am told that it will take another 18 months to 2 years just to straighten that out and to see if there is an appeal on a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. So this whole area is in flux and it could change dramatically. It makes no sense to do a permanent piece of legislation at this point in time, in my view, particularly with this Ninth Circuit case recently coming down. If Allen-Wyden is approved, phone services, which are currently taxable, will become tax exempt. This means local jurisdictions will lose revenues they can collect today. In turn, this means less revenue to pay for local priorities. I support making business and residential access to the Internet tax free. There are primarily three ways to access the Internet today: dial-up service; cable modem; and DSL, digital subscriber lines. Under the recently expired moratorium, two of these methods--dial-up service providers and cable modem--were exempted from taxation. The third, DSL, could be taxed, though many jurisdictions, including California, didn't tax that. But, as I have just told you the Ninth Circuit has just made a change by saying that you can now tax cable modem. Alexander-Carper--the bill I support--would level the playing field and make DSL tax exempt, except in those jurisdictions which already taxed it. This grandfather would last for 2 years. And, it would grandfather access taxes in place in 1998--again for 2 years. It is hoped that this will ensure that the Internet could continue to mature. I must say, also, it is my understanding that Senator Enzi is going to introduce a bill that will be a simple extension of the 2-year moratorium, which expired a few months ago. If the Alexander-Carper bill isn't successful, I will support this solution. I really believe that is the solution--that we should simply extend it, let the Ninth Circuit case go up to the Supreme Court, and let the Supreme Court speak. Or we should add an amendment to S. 150 that says that all present taxes remain unaffected, so that cities, counties, and States, through your State, Madam President, and my State, as well as every other State, can know with certainty that the revenues they have counted on they can continue to count on. If you ask people whether they want police and fire, the answer is yes. If you ask them whether they want local services, the answer is clearly yes. To pass a bill that ends the method of revenue collection and funds up to 15 percent of these local services in many jurisdictions, I think, is an unconscionable thing to do. Much like the tax cuts, they explode in outer years. So while Members that vote for that may be popular for a short period of time, to be able to go home and say they are assuring their local jurisdiction that they are protecting their revenue sources, they cannot do that by voting for S. 150. Just too much is unknown. Fifteen percent means layoffs, and it could mean major cuts in service. It could mean higher local taxes. The cities that have contacted me, large and small, are like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, LaVerne, San Leandro, and Santo Rosa. Let me quote from the comptroller of the city of San Francisco, Ed Harrington. Again, this is a technical person writing: For the city of San Francisco, our telecommunications UUT-- utility users tax--covers local exchange service, long distance, and wireless, which totals $32 million a year. S. 150--that is Allen-Wyden--places all of these revenues in jeopardy. The loss would come, again, from the migration of traditional telephone services to the Internet-based telephone services or Voice Over Internet Protocol; and, 2, the application of S. 150 to local exchange and wireless services that also provide voice and Internet access, which would prevent the city of San Francisco from taxing these services. That is the same as Los Angeles. So you have two of the major cities in the State and their technical and financial people both saying the same thing. The League of Cities, which represents all of California's 478 cities, its county administrators, its police officer associations, its firefighter associations, all oppose this bill. In the city I served as mayor for 9 years, the current definition of telecom services could lead to a loss of $32 million annually. This translates into 300 police and firefighters. I want to also cite the city of Pasadena. Mayor Bill Bogarrd wrote my office to protest that his city would lose $11.4 million under Allen- Wyden, and he writes: By using vague language to include broadband Internet under the moratorium, we fear that the bill will allow telephone and cable companies to use that protection to avoid paying local franchise or utility fees. Which is exactly what is going to happen. He goes on to state: It is our understanding that it was not the intent of the bill sponsors to endanger local franchising authority, but the legislation has yet to be changed to correct these unintended consequences. Virtually every technical person who looks at this bill--the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, as well as every controller, technical professional employee of cities and counties--says the same thing: The definition is flawed, it is vague, and under that definition, any number of things can happen. Madam President, 150 cities in my State levy a utility user tax. That includes telephone and cable television services. These taxes provide the contribution that I mentioned of approximately 15 percent in general purpose revenues. So they make a utility user's tax vital in helping fund critical city services. I know why telephone companies do not want this. They do not want to be bothered by local taxes. But on the other hand, why not say that present taxes are excepted, present taxes would not be covered? Cities can continue those taxes where they are. I believe that because of the determination that this bill is an unfunded mandate and other reasons, S. 150 is subject to a point of order when it is under consideration, and I fully expect that this point of order will be raised. For this Senate to pass a bill that further ties the hands of local government I think will be unfortunate just at a time when so many States face budget deficits and so many cities have the same situation. In short, the problem with Allen-Wyden is that it changes the definition of Internet access in the recently expired Internet tax moratorium in such a way that cities lose billions nationally, that this escalates over time, and that this will lead to reduced preparedness of our cities, to fewer firefighters, and to fewer police officers. Anyone who has ever done a city budget knows you cannot lose up to 15 percent of your revenue and keep services at the same level. I am hopeful that as the days go on and as we consider amendments to the bill, there will be a straight amendment that will just simply extend a 2-year moratorium to give the Supreme Court case Brand X Internet Services v. the FCC the opportunity to go up on appeal, hopefully for the Supreme Court to take it up, or else to leave in place the appellate court opinion which makes very clear that States will be able to tax cable modem service since the 1996 act allows States to tax telecommunications services. One of the most disturbing aspects about the bill is some people think that it imposes Internet sales taxes when this is not true at all. These taxes are all at the point where the Internet comes in to the home, and yet they reach back in the chain as various services come together substantially before the Internet reaches the house. I think if that currently taxable aspect of the service is made unavailable to local communities that have very few revenue sources, it is going to present a substantial hardship for the quality of life of the people we care about in our cities and in our States. I will oppose S. 150. I will vote for the Alexander-Carper bill and will also vote for Senator Enzi's bill should he make that available. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to speak after the vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, at the ``March for Women's Lives'' yesterday, I joined the hundreds of thousands of women from across the United States and the world to show support for a woman's right to choose and for access to reproductive health services. This demonstration comes at a time when women's reproductive rights are in immediate danger. Not only has President Bush done more to roll back women's reproductive health than any president in history, opponents of abortion in Congress have made advances in the assault on the right to choose. In the past decade, Congress has voted on choice related issues 168 times. Women lost in 136 of those votes. As if these attacks themselves were not disturbing enough, the fact that they have gone largely unnoticed and unchallenged is even more alarming. That is why, now, more than ever since Roe v. Wade, it is vital to show President Bush and his friends in Congress that we will fight to maintain women's reproductive rights and access to health care in America. Since the day George W. Bush took office, his administration has been systematically chipping away at women's reproductive rights. One of his first acts as President was to reinstate the global gag rule, which prevents U.S. foreign aid from funding any overseas clinic that performs or counsels women on abortion. The Bush Administration has announced at international conferences that the United States believes that life begins at conception. They have canceled the United States' contribution to the United Nations' family planning program. Instead, they have promoted abstinence-only sex education for young people both here and abroad, even though their success at preventing pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases has been questioned. George W. Bush has also consistently nominated judicial candidates who oppose a woman's right to choose to lifetime appointments on the Federal bench. Just this month, he signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which, for the first time, puts into Federal law the concept that life begins at conception. This will, in effect, grant a fetus or even a fertilized egg separate rights as a person and can now be used legally to further chip away at a woman's constitutional right to choose. I offered an alternative to this bill that would have provided the same effect and punishment for offenders in criminal law, but did not address the profound and deeply divisive question of when life begins. The President also approved a ban on so-called partial birth abortions, which is the first law outlawing abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision. It is also the first time that a medical procedure has ever been criminalized. This unconstitutional law has not yet been enforced because of lawsuits pending against it in Federal courts in San Francisco, New York and Lincoln, NE. In disregard for people's privacy, U.S. Justice Department attorneys defending the law have attempted to compel two doctors to turn over private patient abortion records. Who knows where it will stop? We are on a slippery slope toward granting fetuses greater rights than the mothers who carry them. It may not be long before common forms of contraception, in-vitro fertilization and stem-cell research are banned in the name of the unborn. These Federal laws, along with more than 350 anti-choice measures enacted by States, are setting legal precedents that abortion opponents will use to challenge Roe v. Wade, which is perilously close to being overturned. The Supreme Court appears to be only one vote away from reversing Roe v. Wade and taking the decision to have an abortion away from a woman and her doctor and putting it in the hands of politicians. It is entirely possible that abortion will once again be illegal in this country. For many women, it has been easy to take the right to choose for granted, because it is all they have ever known. I remember a time, however, when an estimated 1.2 million women each year resorted to illegal, back alley abortions despite the possibility of death and infection. I remember that time very vividly. In college during the 1950s, I knew young women who found themselves pregnant with no options. I even knew a woman who committed suicide because she was pregnant and abortion was illegal in the United States. I also remember the passing of a collection plate in my college dormitory so that another friend could go to Mexico for an abortion. That is why it is so important to show President Bush that we will NOT just stand back and do nothing while women's rights are taken away. Women have a fundamental right to determine when and whether to become a mother. The Government should not be able to take that right away. We cannot go back to a time without choice.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is. Now I would like to turn to the portion of the bill concerning administrative compliance with victims' rights, section 2, subsection (f). The provisions of this subsection are relatively self-explanatory, but it important to point out that these procedures are completely separate from and in no way limit the victim's rights in the previous section. Is that Senator Kyl's understanding?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. I would like to turn to the next provision, section 2, subsection (d)(5). This subsection provides that a failure to afford a right under the act does not provide grounds for a new trial. This provision demonstrates that victim's rights are not intended to be, nor are they, an attack on defendants' protections against double jeopardy. This provision is not intended to prevent courts from vacating decisions in nontrial proceedings in which victims' rights were not protected and ordering those proceedings to be redone. It simply assures that a trial will not be redone. Thus, defendants' and victims' rights are both protected. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely. It is a tragic reality that cases may involve multiple victims and yet that fact is not grounds for eviscerating the rights in this bill. Rather, that fact is grounds for the court to find an alternative procedure to give effect to this bill. I now want to turn to another critical aspect of enforcement of victims' rights, section 2, subsection (d)(3). This subsection provides that a crime victim who is denied any of his or her rights as a crime victim has standing to appellate review of that denial. Specifically, the provision allows a crime victim to apply for a writ of mandamus to the appropriate appellate court. The provision provides that court shall take the writ and shall order the relief necessary to protect the crime victim's right. This provision is critical for a couple of reasons. First, it gives the victim standing to appear before the appellate courts of this country and ask for review of a possible error below. Second, while mandamus is generally discretionary, this provision means that courts must review these cases. Appellate review of denials of victims' rights is just as important as the initial assertion of a victim's right. This provision ensures review and encourages courts to broadly defend the victims' rights. Mr. President, does Senator Kyl agree?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. It is not the intent of this bill that its significance be whittled down or marginalized by the courts or the executive branch. This legislation is meant to correct, not continue, the legacy of the poor treatment of crime victims in the criminal process. This legislation is meant to ensure that cases like the McVeigh case, where victims of the Oklahoma City bombing were effectively denied the right to attend the trial and to avoid federal appeals courts from determining, as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did, that victims had no standing to seek review of their right to attend the trial under the former victims' law that this bill replaces. I would also like to comment on section 2, (b), which directs courts to ensure that the rights in this law be afforded and to record, on the record, any reason for denying relief of an assertion of a crime victim. This provision is critical because it is in the courts of this country that these rights will be asserted and it is the courts that will be responsible for enforcing them. Further, requiring a court to provide the reasons for denial of relief is necessary for effective appeal of such denial. Is that the understanding of the Senator?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. That is my understanding as well. The victim of crime, or their counsel, should be able to provide any information, as well as their opinion, directly to the court concerning the release, plea, or sentencing of the accused. This bill intends for this right to be heard to be an independent right of the victim, and thus cannot prevent the victim from being heard. It is important that the ``reasonably be heard'' language not be an excuse for minimizing the victim's opportunity to be heard. Only if it is not practical for the victim to speak in person or if the victim wishes to be heard by the court in a different fashion should this provision mean anything other than an in-person right to be heard. Of course, in providing victim information or opinion it is important that the victim be able to confer with the prosecutor concerning a variety of matters and proceedings. Section 2, (a)(5) provides a right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. This right is intended to be expansive. For example, the victim has the right to confer with the Government concerning any critical stage or disposition of the case. The right, however, is not limited to these examples. I ask the Senator if he concurs in this intent.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. I would now like to address the enforcement provisions of the bill, specifically section 2, subsection (d)(1). This provision allows a crime victim to enter the criminal trial court during proceedings involving the crime against the victim and assert the rights provided by this bill. This provision ensures that crime victims have standing to be heard in trial courts so that they are heard at the very moment when their rights are at stake and this, in turn, forces the criminal justice system to be responsive to a victim's rights in a timely way. Importantly, however, the bill does not allow the defendant in the case to assert any of the victim's rights to obtain relief. This prohibition prevents the individual accused of the crime from distorting a right intended for the benefit of the individual victim into a weapon against justice. The provision allows the crime victim's representative and the attorney for the Government to go into a criminal trial court and assert the crime victim's rights. The inclusions of representatives and the Government's attorney in the provision are important for a number of reasons. First, allowing a representative to assert a crime victim's rights ensures that where a crime victim is unable to assert the rights on his or her own for any reason, including incapacity, incompetence, minority, or death, those rights are not lost. The representative for the crime victim can assert the rights. Second, a crime victim may choose to enlist a private attorney to represent him or her in the criminal case--this provision allows that attorney to enter an appearance on behalf of the victim in the criminal trial court and assert the victim's rights. The provision also recognizes that, at times, the Government's attorney may be best situated to assert a crime victim's rights either because the crime victim is not available at a particular point in the trial or because, at times, the crime victim's interests coincide with those of the Government and it makes sense for a single person to express those joined interests. Importantly, however, the provision does not mean that the Government's attorney has the authority to compromise or co- opt a victim's right. Nor does the provision mean that by not asserting a victim's right the Government's attorney has waived that right. The rights provided in this bill are personal to the individual crime victim and it is that crime victim that has the final word regarding which of the specific rights to assert and when. Waiver of any of the individual rights provided can only happen by the victim's affirmative waiver of that specific right. Does all of this correspond with Senator Kyl's understanding of the bill?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, be added as a cosponsor of the legislation before us.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. My understanding of this subsection is the same the Senator's. Too often crime victims have been unable to exercise their rights because they were not informed of the proceedings. Pleas and sentencings have all too frequently occurred without the victim ever knowing that they were taking place. Victims are the persons who are directly harmed by the crime and they have a stake in the criminal process because of that harm. Their lives are significantly altered by the crime and they have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. To deny them the opportunity to know of and be present at proceedings is counter to the fundamental principles of this country. It is simply wrong. Moreover, victim safety requires that notice of the release or escape of an accused from custody be made in a timely manner to allow the victim to make informed choices about his or her own safety. This provision ensures that takes place. I would like to turn to section 2, (a)(3) of the bill, which provides that the crime victim has the right not to be excluded from any public proceedings. This language was drafted in a way to ensure that the government would not be responsible for paying for the victim's travel and lodging to a place where they could attend the proceedings. In all other respects, this section is intended to grant victims the right to attend and be present throughout all public proceedings. This right is limited in two respects. First, the right is limited to public proceedings, thus grand jury proceedings are excluded from the right. Second, the Government or the defendant can request, and the court can order, judicial proceedings to be closed under existing laws. This provision is not intended to alter those laws or their procedures in any way. I ask the Senator is that is his understanding of this section.