Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1977.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Idaho, also. I was just talking to Representative Lewis. He indicated that two members of his family each lost their homes. I understand that Representative Duncan Hunter also lost his home. So they join literally 1,500 families now who are bereft, without housing, without their home. Really, everything they have built is just gone. Now we find that there are another 44,000 homes in jeopardy. So I very much appreciate the comments of the Senator. Amendment No. 1977

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for those comments. I have just been told we are clear on our side. We can go to the bill. Obviously, there is a request to have amendments and I think we should hear the amendments out and vote on them. I think those of us who participated in this are really dedicated to get this bill passed. We worked for 2 years with your help----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator Boxer, with some remarks about the fire. This fire is actually far more serious than any fire I have seen, and I have spent some time now becoming familiar with forestry practices and fires. Before a fire is under control, it has to be contained, and virtually no aspect of these 10 fires are contained tonight. As my colleague said, they have taken 13 lives; they have destroyed 1,100 homes; they have burned over 400,000 acres, and that is two-thirds the size of Rhode Island. Virtually no fire is contained and firefighters must conduct an evacuation to move people out. Senator Boxer gave you the latest figures on some of these fires. But there is one fire I wish to point out and that is the fire heading toward San Diego. Mayor Murphy of San Diego said to me last night that the fire is pointed like a spear into the heart of San Diego. It is running through housing projects, crossing freeways, and it is extremely dangerous. These fires are virtually all over--from Los Angeles down to the Mexican border. I will soon print in the Record the specific statistics about each one. Like my colleague, I spoke four times with Mike Brown. He was in Albuquerque. I am pleased that he is headed to southern California. He has cut redtape, brought in 22 additional engines, 3 strike teams, firefighters from northern California are headed to the south, and teams coming in from surrounding States. We are very grateful for that. I am also grateful to the President for declaring a Federal state of emergency for San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties. The State declaration has also been called by Governor Davis, and Federal disaster assistance will now include aid to individuals and households, aid to public agencies for emergency services, and repair or replacement of disaster-damaged public facilities, and funding for measures designed to reduce losses to property. The Federal Government has already provided fire management assistance grants for at least eight wildfires in southern California. These grants reimburse the State for 75 percent of the cost of fighting the fire. My sadness and concern about these wildfires are not confined to those who lost their lives and their properties, but it is also the reality that they were entirely predictable, and new ones will also burn across my State. I believe we must take steps now to reduce the harm of forest fires. These conditions are all familiar to us--drought, densely packed forests, unhealthily crowded with little trees. For decades, we have put out the ground fires that would otherwise clear out the brush. The result is huge fuel loads of small trees and brush, which is perfect kindling for a catastrophic fire. In areas such as San Diego County, where there is more brush than forests, fire suppression has likewise created such a tangle of brush that fires often cannot be stopped. The Santa Ana winds are another factor. These hot, dry winds blow often in the fall, and they don't just occur in southern California. The 1991 fire in Oakland and Berkley was fanned by similar devastating winds. They come every year. We know they are coming, yet we have not adjusted our forest practices to deal with them. Hundreds of thousands of dead and dying trees from infestation, such as the bark beetle, remain untreated, trees unremoved, with as many as 90,000 people living in bark beetle-infested forests in San Bernardino County, with only one-leg roads to get them out in case of catastrophe. With all these conditions for disaster in place, I have feared for some time now that California could face a devastating season of wildfires, and that seems to be just what is happening right now. So I believe we need to take action now, not just to correct our mismanagement of the forests and the brush but for a more basic reason. We need to act in advance because of the terrible fact that most of the deaths that occurred in these fires did so because people had too little time to escape. At least seven people, so far, have died as they tried to escape the cedar fire in the narrow Wildcat Canyon area near the Barona Ranch Indian Reservation in San Diego County. People died on foot, people died in their cars, people died still trapped in their homes. At least two children died while trying to escape with their parents. The fires travel just too quickly, and hillside roads are too narrow and too winding to count on people being able to get out. Let me give you one story. Violet Ingrum lived in San Diego's Scripps Ranch neighborhood. She went to bed Saturday night worried mainly about her daughter, who lives in Hollywood, and the danger of potential wildfires to her daughter's home. Only a few hours later, she woke up to a howling wind and the horrifying sight of flames beyond her back fence and debris falling into her swimming pool. She only had time to grab her two cats and two photo albums, and one of her cats jumped out of the car before she could get away. But she was a lucky one. So I believe very deeply that we need to act now to reduce the threat from these wildfires and to give our firefighters a better chance to defend our communities. We were able to get Congress to approve $30 million last month in fiscal 2003 funds to help battle the bark beetle, and I am urging the Forest Service to put those funds to work immediately. That is an important step forward, but we need broader measures to reduce the threat from our forests. I am delighted that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee is on the floor tonight, Senator Thad Cochran, because we have worked with him to produce a compromise bill that I hope will be on the floor of the Senate soon. I hope it will be passed because this bill, which can get 60 votes, is the only chance that this Congress has an opportunity to pass a hazard fuels mitigation program this year. The fact is, there are 57 million acres of Federal land at the highest risk of catastrophic fire, including 8.5 million acres in California alone. In the past 5 years, wildfires like the ones going on today have raged through 26.9 million acres, including over 2 million acres in California. In response to these threats, an agreement has been reached by a bipartisan group of 10 Senators to protect our forests from catastrophic fire by expediting the thinning of hazardous fuels and, at the same time, provide the first legal protection for old-growth trees in our Nation's history. Those who have participated, along with myself, in the lengthy negotiations--2 years now--leading up to this agreement include Senators Thad Cochran, Ron Wyden, Larry Craig, Mike Crapo, Pete Domenici, Jon Kyl, Blanche Lincoln, John McCain, and Max Baucus. Legislation implementing the agreement as a proposed substitute amendment to title I of H.R. 1904, the House-passed Healthy Forest bill, was filed by Senator Cochran, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, on October 2. Yet there have been objections raised to proceeding with this bipartisan substitute amendment. I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to support this legislation so we can defend our communities and protect our forests. I wish to take a few moments because if ever there is a time to look at this kind of legislation it is now. I wish to spend a few moments and describe exactly what the legislation would do. It would establish an expedited process so the Forest Service and the Department of Interior can get to work on brush-clearing projects to minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Up to 20 million acres of lands near communities, municipal watersheds, and other high-risk areas are included in our project. This includes lands that have suffered from serious wind damage or insect infestations, such as the bark beetle.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. A total of $760 million is authorized. That is a $340 million increase over current funding. At least 50 percent of the funds would be used for fuels reduction near communities. That is what we do not have in this catastrophic wildfire that is taking place right now. The legislation also requires that large fire-resilient old-growth trees be protected from logging immediately. It mandates that forest plans that are more than 10 years old and most in need of updating be updated with old-growth protection consistent with the national standard within 2 to 3 years. Without this provision in the amendment, we would have to wait a decade or more to see improved old-growth protection. Even then, there would be no guarantee that this protection against the threat of both logging and catastrophic fire would be very strong. In California, the amendment to the Sierra Nevada framework that is currently in progress will have to comply with the new national standard for old-growth protection. We have also tried to expedite, shorten, and improve the administrative review process to make it more collaborative and less confrontational. It is critical that the Forest Service spend its scarce dollars by doing work on the ground rather than being mired in endless paperwork. The legislation we submitted preserves multiple opportunities for meaningful public involvement. People can attend a public meeting on every project. They can submit comments during both the preparation of the environmental impact statement and during the administrative review process. I guarantee that the public will have a meaningful say in these projects. It does change the environmental review process so that the Forest Service still considers the effects of a project in detail but can focus its analysis on the proposal, one reasonable alternative that meets the project goals and the alternative of not doing the project, instead of the five or nine alternatives that are now often required. This is not the siting of a freeway where one may want five or nine alternative projects. We know where the project is going to take place. The question is, Should it be mechanical? Should it be by burning? What are the problems with the area? Is there a better way of doing it? So this legislation replaces the current Forest Service administrative appeals with a review process that will occur after the Forest Service finishes its environmental review of a project but before it reaches its decision. This new approach is similar to a process adopted by the Clinton administration in 2000 for a review of forest plans and amendments to those plans. The process will be speedier and less confrontational than the current administrative appeal process. There is a great deal of misconception both about the appeals process and the judicial review process. I will quickly take a minute and tell my colleagues what we have recommended with respect to judicial review. First, parties can sue in Federal court only on issues raised in the administrative review process. This is common sense that allows agencies the opportunity to correct their own mistakes before everything gets litigated. Lawsuits must be filed in the same jurisdiction as the proposed project. This also makes common sense. Courts are encouraged to resolve the case as soon as possible, and preliminary injunctions are limited to 60 days. They can be extended, but the individuals making the claim have to go back to court and justify why they need another preliminary injunction. The court must weigh the environmental benefit of performing a given project against its environmental risk as it reviews the case. This is the balance-of-harms language. I deeply believe this amendment is much preferable to the House bill which has passed. There are many ways in which we improve on the House- passed bill. First, we focus on the highest priority lands, where we need to undertake brush-clearing projects to restore forest health and prevent forest fire. These include the wildland urban interface as defined by the communities needing protection. It includes lands where fires would threaten municipal water supplies and lands significantly harmed by insects. Secondly, we have protected both old-growth stands and large trees across the landscape. The projects expedited by this act will restore forest health. Finally, the Senate agreement removed a provision of the House-passed bill that could have threatened the fair and impartial judicial review of Forest Service actions. This provision would have tilted the playing field in forestry litigation by requiring a court to defer to the Federal Agency's views in deciding whether to issue an injunction. So we have seriously improved the House bill. In closing, I say to my colleagues that if ever there is a case in point as to why we have to spend more time on the ground with forest actions rather than debating them here, it is the 10 fires that are now taking place in California. They are catastrophic. In fact, they are wreaking human devastation and degradation on a level seldom seen. It is time for this body and this Congress to act. Both Senator Wyden and I, and Senator Cochran as well, have asked the administration for a statement of administrative policy that they will, in effect, support this legislation in conference. This is critical to our agreement. I have written to the White House. We have called the White House. We have not had a response. So the action and the ball is really in the White House's court at this time. We need to hear from them. We need to know whether, in fact, this bill, which we believe can garner 60 votes in the Senate, will, in fact, have strong White House and administration support when it goes to conference, because if it does not, and if the vehicle is not this bill, there will not be a bill. I think that is the truth as many find it. So to all of those in California who have suffered such grievous loss, I join my colleague in sending our deepest condolences. I have asked all my staff to go to southern California to be available to receive calls from people to try to hook them up with whatever help or aid they need. FEMA will shortly be making announcements as to what numbers to call, where to go to fill out the applications, and we will do everything we can to help facilitate that process. This is truly one of the great tragedies of human life. Can my colleagues imagine children and parents being burned fleeing from this kind of a fire and over 1,000 families losing everything they have worked a lifetime to build? I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may say, through the Chair, for just a moment to the Senator, then I believe we can move to the bill. Because, as I understand it, what you have just stated is exactly the position of this side.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent for another 8 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As a point of clarification, Senator, if I may, I am told there is no objection to going to the bill. There was an objection on the limitation of amendments.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak in honor of our late friend and colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, and to remember his wife, Sheila, their daughter, Marcia, the campaign staff and the pilots who died in a plane crash one year ago. I speak today to praise Paul's work and to praise his passion, to praise his vision, and to praise his legacy. He was truly a great Senator and a great human being. His love of all people was his guiding principle. He is very much missed in the Senate, in this country, and especially in the great State of Minnesota. Born in Washington, D.C., Paul began a journey that would take him from Virginia, to North Carolina, to Minnesota, and back to Washington, D.C. to serve in the United States Senate. His life experiences along the way back here developed and defined his political vision. Seeing his father cope with Parkinson's gave him insight into the failures of our health care system, and the struggle with his brother's mental illness fueled his desire to raise awareness and expand care for mental illness. From the beginning of his service in the Senate, Paul left an impressive legacy. In his first Senate campaign in 1990, Paul was the only candidate to beat an incumbent Senator. During this campaign, he was the underdog. He was an unknown candidate challenging an incumbent; he was outspent 6-to-1 and he had never held elected office in his life. Despite these odds, however, Paul battled, town by town, to be elected Senator from Minnesota. He traveled throughout the State on an old green school bus, making stump speeches and inspiring grassroots organization. In many ways, his campaign for Senate is an allegory for his entire political life. He was often viewed as the underdog, fighting for the little guys, against moneyed and powerful special interests, refusing to give up or accept defeat. Paul once stated ``I still believe Government can be used as a force for good in people's lives.'' A simple but profound statement, it guided him in his journey in public service. Whether he was advocating for universal healthcare, or fighting for victims of domestic violence, he truly believed that he, and the United States Senate, could do good in people's lives. One need only listen to the tributes from the Members of this body to truly see that Paul himself was also a force of good in people's lives. Many people that were opposed to Paul politically and philosophically still respected him very much. Last year, Senator Domenici, an ally of Paul's in the fight for mental health parity, made a beautiful statement when he found out Paul had died. Senator Lott, too, gave a wonderful tribute to Paul, praising his compassion and his optimism. It is truly a tribute to the character of Paul Wellstone that he was so respected, even by people who disagreed with him. Paul loved the Senate and the Senators with whom he served. He was a master at delivering moving speeches, usually speaking when there were no Members in the Chamber to hear him speak. I remember that as he would speak, he would start to speak at his desk, not far from my own desk, and would walk back and forth behind the desks, up and down the aisle. He could not contain his excitement or his passion. In his book, ``Conscience of a Liberal,'' Paul wrote this about Diane Feldman, a member of his campaign staff: She told me that Minnesotans did not agree with me on every issue, but many of them admired my courage and integrity. I hope and pray that Minnesotans will always feel this way about me. I believe that Minnesotans do admire and respect him for his courage and integrity. Most people that have met Paul Wellstone admire and respect him for his courage and integrity. Paul was called a number of things in his career as a Senator: ``the happy warrior,'' ``the soul of the Senate,'' ``embarrassingly liberal,'' ``Senator softie.'' But I am truly honored to be able to call him a friend, and I consider myself lucky to have served in this distinguished body with such a great human being.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Methamphetamine Blister Pack Loophole Elimination Act of 2003,'' along with my colleagues Senators Grassley, Kohl, Biden, Kyl and Harkin. This is a simple bill, and directly follows recommendations made by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in a 2002 study requested by Congress. All this legislation does is make it harder for meth dealers to get the precursor pseudoephedrine products necessary to make this illegal drug. Making it harder for meth dealers to make and obtain their drugs is something beneficial not just to California, but to the entire Nation. Once predominantly found in the American Southwest, methamphetamine's presence now stretches from coast to coast. I'm sorry to say that my home State of California has been referred to as the ``Colombia of meth production.'' In fact, our State is known as the ``source country'' for the drug, producing roughly 80 percent of the Nation's methamphetamine supply. According to the DEA, 1,847 clandestine meth labs were found in California in 2001 alone. In each of these meth labs across the country, those who make methamphetamine combine a number of precursor drugs, from red phosphorus, which is difficult to obtain, highly flammable and toxic, to pseudoephedrine, which can be found in common cold medicine in every supermarket, pharmacy, and convenience store in America. Recognizing the easy availability of pseudoephedrine, Congress has acted several times to make it more difficult for meth dealers to purchase it in bulk. First, we placed a 24-gram limit, which represented almost 1000 pills. Then, just a few years ago, we reduced this threshold to just 9 grams--still some 366 30-milligram pills. Anyone buying more than this amount of pseudoephedrine at one time would be required to give his or her name and address. As it turns out, this reporting requirement is considered too burdensome by most retail stores, so instead of keeping track of purchasers, most retailers simply limit single transaction sales of pseudoephedrine pills to less than 9 grams. This is an even more beneficial result than the reporting requirements. Such limits, which now often go as low as three or even two packages of cold medicine, make it much harder for meth manufacturers to get this precursor drug. Instead of simply going to the local WalMart or Costco and clearing the shelves of thousands of packages at once, they must now buy just a few packages at a time. But through all of this, there is one gaping loophole in the law, that allows any of this product packaged in so-called ``blister-packs'' to avoid these reporting requirements. Only loose pills in bottles face the 9-gram restrictions in the law. Blister packs are the most common form of packaging for cold medicine, as anyone who goes grocery shopping knows. Most people who buy pseudoephedrine will find it in blister packs, as will most meth dealers. As a result, the 9-gram limit in the law has become fairly useless--we limited the sales of pills, so meth dealers simply migrated to blister packs. This loophole in the law exists because of previous doubts, by some, that meth dealers would bother to use blister-packed products. These foil and plastic containers hold each pill individually, and as a result it is harder to gather the thousands of pills necessary to manufacture methamphetamine in bulk. Those of us from California have known for some time that blister packs are a problem, because California's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement has been finding blister packs at meth lab sites for years. But to answer the doubts of those not lucky enough to come from my home state, we authorized DEA to do a study into this issue in 1999. Well, that study is back, and guess what--DEA has given us clear, incontrovertible evidence that these blister packs are making up an increasing percentage of the pseudoephedrine found at lab sites. In some instances, meth manufacturers use sophisticated, industrial ``deblistering'' machines to quickly extract pills from blister packs. In others, I have been told, children are employed to sit in the meth lab and pop out thousands of pills, by hand, into nearby buckets. According to the report we requested from the DEA, which was released in March of 2002, blister packaged pseudoephedrine products seized at clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and other locations, such as dumpsites, have involved seizures of over a million tablets. The seizure of so many blister packaged pseudoephedrine products shows convincingly that blister packaging is not a deterrent to ordinary, over-the-counter pseudoephedrine use in clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. So clearly, what we argued in 1999, and in 1996, is true. Meth manufacturers are using blister packs, and something must be done to stop them as best we can. In order to address this problem, DEA recommended in its report that the blister pack loophole be closed, and that the current retail sales limit of 9 grams for bottled pseudoephedrine be extended to blister packed products as well. And that, is all that this bill would do. According to DEA, this is the single best thing we can do to help them in the fight against methamphetamine. This legislation will clear up confusion among retailers who may find it hard to train employees to limit the sales of certain cold medicine if sold in bottles, but not the same medicine in other packaging. This legislation will help DEA enforce the retail sales thresholds by making it harder for sellers to claim ignorance or confusion about the law. This legislation might make it less likely that meth dealers will employ young children to pop pills out of the blister packs, all within harms reach in meth labs around the country. This legislation will not negatively impact the ability of pharmaceutical manufacturers to make legitimate profits. This legislation will not be a burden on consumers, because the 9 gram limit still represents 366 pills--30 packages of 12 pills, or 15 packages of 24 pills, two of the most common amounts. It is hard for me to imagine that an average person--or even a large family--needs to buy more than 366 cold pills at one time. In fact, many stores throughout the country have already voluntarily limited pseudoephedrine sales to just a few packages at a time, and there has been little outcry from consumers unable to purchase more. This bill is not a panacea for the meth problem in the United States--far from it. I have been working on various parts of the meth problem for many years, and I know that this must be a multi-faceted approach--tougher penalties, money for training, enforcement and clean- up, restrictions on precursor chemicals, tools for prosecutors, and so on. But to fail to enact this legislation is to make it far easier for meth dealers to continue to easily ply their trade. I urge my colleagues to look at this bill, join us in supporting it, and help us to pass it as soon as possible to assist the DEA in the very uphill battle against the illegal and pervasive manufacture and sale of methamphetamine. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Methamphetamine Blister Pack Loophole Elimination Act of 2003,'' along with my colleagues Senators Grassley, Kohl, Biden, Kyl and Harkin. This is a simple bill, and directly follows recommendations made by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in a 2002 study requested by Congress. All this legislation does is make it harder for meth dealers to get the precursor pseudoephedrine products necessary to make this illegal drug. Making it harder for meth dealers to make and obtain their drugs is something beneficial not just to California, but to the entire Nation. Once predominantly found in the American Southwest, methamphetamine's presence now stretches from coast to coast. I'm sorry to say that my home State of California has been referred to as the ``Colombia of meth production.'' In fact, our State is known as the ``source country'' for the drug, producing roughly 80 percent of the Nation's methamphetamine supply. According to the DEA, 1,847 clandestine meth labs were found in California in 2001 alone. In each of these meth labs across the country, those who make methamphetamine combine a number of precursor drugs, from red phosphorus, which is difficult to obtain, highly flammable and toxic, to pseudoephedrine, which can be found in common cold medicine in every supermarket, pharmacy, and convenience store in America. Recognizing the easy availability of pseudoephedrine, Congress has acted several times to make it more difficult for meth dealers to purchase it in bulk. First, we placed a 24-gram limit, which represented almost 1000 pills. Then, just a few years ago, we reduced this threshold to just 9 grams--still some 366 30-milligram pills. Anyone buying more than this amount of pseudoephedrine at one time would be required to give his or her name and address. As it turns out, this reporting requirement is considered too burdensome by most retail stores, so instead of keeping track of purchasers, most retailers simply limit single transaction sales of pseudoephedrine pills to less than 9 grams. This is an even more beneficial result than the reporting requirements. Such limits, which now often go as low as three or even two packages of cold medicine, make it much harder for meth manufacturers to get this precursor drug. Instead of simply going to the local WalMart or Costco and clearing the shelves of thousands of packages at once, they must now buy just a few packages at a time. But through all of this, there is one gaping loophole in the law, that allows any of this product packaged in so-called ``blister-packs'' to avoid these reporting requirements. Only loose pills in bottles face the 9-gram restrictions in the law. Blister packs are the most common form of packaging for cold medicine, as anyone who goes grocery shopping knows. Most people who buy pseudoephedrine will find it in blister packs, as will most meth dealers. As a result, the 9-gram limit in the law has become fairly useless--we limited the sales of pills, so meth dealers simply migrated to blister packs. This loophole in the law exists because of previous doubts, by some, that meth dealers would bother to use blister-packed products. These foil and plastic containers hold each pill individually, and as a result it is harder to gather the thousands of pills necessary to manufacture methamphetamine in bulk. Those of us from California have known for some time that blister packs are a problem, because California's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement has been finding blister packs at meth lab sites for years. But to answer the doubts of those not lucky enough to come from my home state, we authorized DEA to do a study into this issue in 1999. Well, that study is back, and guess what--DEA has given us clear, incontrovertible evidence that these blister packs are making up an increasing percentage of the pseudoephedrine found at lab sites. In some instances, meth manufacturers use sophisticated, industrial ``deblistering'' machines to quickly extract pills from blister packs. In others, I have been told, children are employed to sit in the meth lab and pop out thousands of pills, by hand, into nearby buckets. According to the report we requested from the DEA, which was released in March of 2002, blister packaged pseudoephedrine products seized at clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and other locations, such as dumpsites, have involved seizures of over a million tablets. The seizure of so many blister packaged pseudoephedrine products shows convincingly that blister packaging is not a deterrent to ordinary, over-the-counter pseudoephedrine use in clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. So clearly, what we argued in 1999, and in 1996, is true. Meth manufacturers are using blister packs, and something must be done to stop them as best we can. In order to address this problem, DEA recommended in its report that the blister pack loophole be closed, and that the current retail sales limit of 9 grams for bottled pseudoephedrine be extended to blister packed products as well. And that, is all that this bill would do. According to DEA, this is the single best thing we can do to help them in the fight against methamphetamine. This legislation will clear up confusion among retailers who may find it hard to train employees to limit the sales of certain cold medicine if sold in bottles, but not the same medicine in other packaging. This legislation will help DEA enforce the retail sales thresholds by making it harder for sellers to claim ignorance or confusion about the law. This legislation might make it less likely that meth dealers will employ young children to pop pills out of the blister packs, all within harms reach in meth labs around the country. This legislation will not negatively impact the ability of pharmaceutical manufacturers to make legitimate profits. This legislation will not be a burden on consumers, because the 9 gram limit still represents 366 pills--30 packages of 12 pills, or 15 packages of 24 pills, two of the most common amounts. It is hard for me to imagine that an average person--or even a large family--needs to buy more than 366 cold pills at one time. In fact, many stores throughout the country have already voluntarily limited pseudoephedrine sales to just a few packages at a time, and there has been little outcry from consumers unable to purchase more. This bill is not a panacea for the meth problem in the United States--far from it. I have been working on various parts of the meth problem for many years, and I know that this must be a multi-faceted approach--tougher penalties, money for training, enforcement and clean- up, restrictions on precursor chemicals, tools for prosecutors, and so on. But to fail to enact this legislation is to make it far easier for meth dealers to continue to easily ply their trade. I urge my colleagues to look at this bill, join us in supporting it, and help us to pass it as soon as possible to assist the DEA in the very uphill battle against the illegal and pervasive manufacture and sale of methamphetamine. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Eastside Light Rail Transit, LRT project in Los Angeles, which would receive $5,000,000 in New Starts funds contained in this appropriations bill. This six-mile, dual track light rail system will originate at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles, where it connects with the newly opened Pasadena Gold Line, and will travel east to Atlantic Boulevard. It will bridge State Route 101 Freeway and traverse the existing 1st Street Bridge over the Los Angeles River, then under the communities of East LA and Boyle Heights and return to the surface near the intersection of 1st and Lorena Streets. The Eastside LRT project is the top fiscal year 2004 appropriations priority of the Los Angeles County MTA. I understand that the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget includes $55,000,000 for the Eastside LRT project and it also states that the project is pending receipt of a Full Funding Grant Agreement, FFGA.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise in opposition to the conference report accompanying S. 3 which some, I think inaccurately, call the partial- birth abortion bill. In fact, this bill, originally introduced by Senator Santorum, is more accurately called the unconstitutional anti- choice bill, given the fact that it is flagrantly unconstitutional and its primary result will be to chill second-trimester abortion procedures. I voted against this conference report in the recent House-Senate conference on this bill and also on the floor of the Senate last March. This is the first bill since Roe v. Wade in 1973 that outlaws safe medical procedures and recriminalizes abortion. It is a major step forward in the march to obliterate a woman's right to control her own reproductive system and to eviscerate the entire choice movement in this country. This bill is unconstitutional, I believe, for two reasons. First, it uses a vague definition of dilation and extraction abortion, or D&X abortion. This technique is also called intact dilation and evacuation, or intact D&E. It is also sometimes called, inaccurately, partial-birth abortion. The sponsors of the bill have refused to use a definition of D&X that I suggested and that tracks the medical definition submitted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Why? Why would they refuse to use a definition suggested by the elite medical group of obstetricians and gynecologists who deal with this issue--a definition that would enable those obstetricians and gynecologists to know exactly what this legislation makes a crime? I believe there is a reason. I believe that this bill deliberately uses a vague definition of D&X in order to affect other kinds of second-trimester abortions and thus impact the right to choose. Because its definition is so loose, the bill would ban and otherwise interfere with perfectly legal, permissible abortion techniques. It will also have a chilling effect on doctors, who will be afraid to perform abortions other than D&X for fear they will be subject to investigation and prosecution. Why? Because the bill does not use an accepted medical definition of D&X. Second, the bill lacks any health exception. This has been spoken about before, and I will do it again. The Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that any ban must have a health exception. This bill has no health exception. Why are we bothering to pass a bill that is so clearly unconstitutional? The only reason I can think of is the proponents of the bill do not believe the health of a mother is sufficient reason to interrupt a pregnancy. In fact, the supporters of the bill are not trying to remedy its constitutional defects. Rather, they are just making minor alterations to the findings in the bill. I also oppose the bill because it omits language a majority of the Senate added last March recognizing the importance of Roe v. Wade and stating that this important opinion should not be overturned. Unfortunately, as has been said, this language was stripped out in conference over the strenuous opposition of Senator Boxer, Congressman Nadler, Congresswoman Lofgren, and myself. As an initial matter, I want to lay one myth to rest; that is the myth that most Americans support this bill. Supporters of the bill have repeatedly and erroneously argued that a majority of the country supports banning D&X abortion. For example, in introducing this bill, Senator Santorum stated on the floor that ``the American people clearly believe this is a procedure that should be prohibited.'' However, such statements are not borne out by recent polls. For example, last July, ABC News released a nationwide poll which showed 61 percent of Americans oppose bans on so-called partial-birth abortion procedures if a woman's health is threatened. The bill now before us contains no health exception. That means a substantial majority of Americans think this bill is wrong. I also want to mention a poll taken by Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research, Inc. between June 5, 2003, and June 12, 2003, of 1,200 likely voters. The poll found a majority of Americans--56 percent--believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. In addition, this poll found the country does not want the Government involved in a woman's private medical decisions. Eighty percent of voters believe abortion is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor. In fact, even a majority of those who identified themselves as pro-life said a woman and her doctor should make the decision. In stark contrast, this bill criminalizes safe abortion procedures, and it puts the abortion decision in the hands of the Government and in the hands of politicians, not the woman and her doctor. I would now like to mention Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, and the man who the New York Times called ``an 'icon' of the pro-life movement.'' Mr. Terry is one of the staunchest foes of the right to choose in the entire Nation. He is known for harboring views so strong on the abortion issue that he has been jailed dozens of times for blocking clinics and for having a human fetus delivered to former President Bill Clinton. He is also known for speaking his mind. Let me read some quotes from Mr. Terry in a press release issued through the Christian Communication Network, dated just a month ago, September 15, 2003. This press release is entitled: ``Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue Says, `Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is a Political Scam but a Public Relations Goldmine.'' Let me repeat that: ``Partial-Birth Abortion is a Political Scam but a Public Relations Goldmine.'' Mr. Terry says the bill before us is a ``Political Scam.'' Specifically, he states: This bill, if it becomes law, may not save one child's life. The Federal courts are likely to strike it down. . . .The bill provides political cover in an election season to cowardly ``pro-life'' political leaders who have done little for the pro-life cause. That is not me. I am quoting Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue. Let me repeat: ``This bill, if it becomes law, may not save one child's life. The Federal courts are likely to strike it down. . . .'' And he is right. Mr. Terry then goes on to say: If the President and Congress want to accomplish a small, but real, step they should outlaw all abortions after 20 weeks--the age when a baby can live outside the womb. Interestingly enough, his suggestion is similar to an amendment I offered on the floor of the Senate and in the joint House-Senate conference on this bill. This amendment would have banned all postviability abortions except and unless a doctor determines such an abortion is necessary to protect the life and health of the woman. This is the way to go. If someone truly believes these abortions, which are not medically defined in the bill, should not take place, and if one believes the child is capable of life, then ban postviability abortions. I was prepared to see that enacted into law. But it was voted down twice, on the floor and in the conference committee. I would like to take a moment to explain in detail why I think this bill is poorly drafted and is virtually certain to be struck down by the courts. The conference report bill is unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it attempts to ban the specific medical procedure it calls ``partial-birth abortion,'' but it fails to use the accepted medical definition of what surgical procedure constitutes partial-birth abortion. The refusal of the sponsors of the bill to accept the medical definition of intact D&E is revealing. It makes it clear they are not really intent or interested in banning intact D&E or D&X, but, rather, they seek to muddy the waters to make it harder for women to get legal abortion using other legal and acceptable techniques. That, in my view, is the underlying purpose of the bill. The Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that any ban must have a health exception. This bill clearly, despite many attempts by this senator and others to put one in, has no health exception. The other side has repeatedly opposed a health exception. Here is what Justice O'Connor said in her deciding opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart: [B]ecause even a post-viability proscription of abortion would be invalid absent a health exception, Nebraska's ban on pre-viability partial birth abortions, under the circumstances presented here, must include a health exception as well. . . .The statute at issue here, however, only excepts those procedures necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness or physical injury. This lack of a health exception necessarily renders the statute unconstitutional. Now, I must ask you, why would anybody, after this case, with the swing judge making that statement, draft a bill that so clearly violates the Supreme Court's decision? Justice O'Connor has very clearly said the ``lack of a health exception necessarily renders the statute unconstitutional.'' The fact the sponsors are ignoring the clear words of the Supreme Court is suspect to me. It is even more suspect given the fact that just last year the U.S. Government took the position in court that any ban on D&X must include a health exception. The Santorum bill, then, not only contravenes the Supreme Court but also flies in the face of the position taken by the U.S. Department of Justice. Let me read from a brief filed by the United States in February of 2002 in Women's Medical Professional Corporation v. Bob Taft, a case in the Sixth Circuit involving an Ohio statute prohibiting late-term abortion including D&X. According to this brief: the Court [in Carhart] stressed that the Nebraska statute prohibited the partial birth method of abortion except where that procedure was ``necessary to save the life of the mother,'' . . . in violation of the Court's prior holdings in Roe v. Wade . . . and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey . . . that a State must permit abortions, ``necessary in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother . . . '' The original brief even has the words ``or health'' underlined. In other words, according to a brief filed by the United States Government last year, under Carhart, Roe, and Planned Parenthood, a State ``must'' provide a health exception for the woman. Yet we fly merrily in the face of that. It is ridiculous. Supporters of the Santorum bill argue that they can ignore this language by throwing into the bill some questionable factual findings that a health exception is unnecessary. Baloney. They argue that these so-called findings make irrelevant the Supreme Court's constitutional determination in Carhart that a health exception is necessary. The Framers of the Constitution did not intend that Congress be able to evade Supreme Court precedent and effectively amend the Constitution just by holding a hearing and generating questionable testimony from handpicked witnesses. In fact, the Supreme Court has made crystal clear that Congress cannot simply ignore a constitutional ruling they dislike by adopting a contrary legislative finding and telling the Court that they have to defer to it. That is just what is being done here. Let me quote Chief Justice Burger on this point: A legislature appropriately inquires into and may declare the reasons impelling legislative action but the judicial function commands analysis of whether the specific conduct charged falls within the reach of the statute and if so whether the legislation is consonant with the Constitution. So make no mistake about it. You can say anything you want in the findings, and it isn't going to be dispositive as to whether the statute meets the test of the Constitution of the United States. I also want to quote from U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), a decision that struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act. I personally disagree with this decision, but it is controlling law. In that case, the Supreme Court held that ``the existence of congressional findings is not sufficient, by itself, to sustain the constitutionality'' of the challenged provision of the Violence Against Women Act. That is on page 614. So why are these findings in the bill? I believe the other side is well aware of U.S. v. Morrison and other cases. Why are they doing it this way then? There has to be a reason. Here the sponsors of S. 3 are trying to do exactly what the Supreme Court said the Congress cannot do: Use congressional findings to do something that is clearly unconstitutional. The sponsors of this bill are effectively trying to overturn binding Supreme Court precedent and rewrite the Constitution by enacting a bill that on its face violates Stenberg v. Carhart. They have clearly overstepped their bounds. Mr. President, one of the most disappointing aspects of this debate is that a majority of the House-Senate conference on this bill decided to thwart the will of the Senate and strip out language recognizing the importance of Roe v. Wade. This decision clearly unmasked the sponsor's clear intention in introducing this bill: to strike at Roe. The provision stripped out of the bill was a simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Let me read its exact language: One, the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 1973, was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right. Two, such decision should not be overturned. They struck this language out. Why? Because they want Roe overturned. That is the reason. I am pleased that the Roe v. Wade amendment was added to the bill last March on a bipartisan vote of 52 to 46. Unfortunately, the House- passed late-term abortion bill lacked the language. The House refused to agree to it. While I oppose the criminalization of safe abortion techniques in S. 3, I strongly support the Roe v. Wade language we added to that legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from California. In the past 30 years, since the Supreme Court upheld a woman's right to choose, a great deal has changed for women in America. But now, in 2003, we are about to push women back to where they were in the 1950s, a generation that I remember well, a generation of passing the plate to raise money for abortions in Mexico, a generation of back alley abortions, a generation of tremendous mortality and morbidity for women, a generation of fear. It makes no sense. The fact that a majority of the House-Senate conference stripped out sense-of-the-Senate language that merely summarized Federal abortion law should be exhibit A for anyone who doubts that this bill is really a frontal political attack on choice in America. I am also disappointed that the conference refused to accept a commonsense amendment I offered to the bill before us today. That amendment, as I said, would have banned all postviability abortions except if determined by the doctor that such an abortion was necessary to protect the life and health of the woman. With that amendment, the sponsors of this bill could have gotten what they wanted legally. Why didn't they take it? The reason they didn't take it is because if you have an anti-choice bill with a nebulous, vague definition, you can chill all legal second trimester abortions. Let me tell you one more thing about the amendment I offered. To ensure compliance with the amendment, we even provided that a doctor who would perform a postviability abortion on a woman whose health or life is not at risk could be fined up to $100,000. That amendment would have put medical decisions back into the hands of doctors but, at the same time, prevented abuses. In my view, if a doctor believes such a procedure is necessary to protect a woman's life or health, then he or she should be able to perform that procedure. Why do some Senators believe that the Federal Government even needs to be involved in this issue? Why is this legislation even necessary? Roe v. Wade clearly allows States to ban all postviability abortions unless it is necessary to protect a woman's life or health, and 41 States already have bans on the books. All States are free today to do so if their State legislatures so choose. The fact is, abortions this late in the pregnancy are rare and usually performed under tragic circumstances, such as a brain outside of a child's skull or vital inner workings outside of the body that cannot be connected. Mr. President, the whole focus of many in this Congress and in the conservative movement has been to give power and control back to the States and eliminate the Federal Government from people's lives. So anyone who believes in States' rights must now question the logic of imposing a new Federal regulation on States in a case such as this, where States already have the authority to ban postviability abortions and where a dominant majority of States--41--have already enacted such a law. Is Federal legislation really necessary? No. I say to my colleagues that this clearly is a political bill designed to fan the flames and invade Roe v. Wade and weaken it substantially. It attempts to ban a medical procedure without properly identifying that procedure in medical terms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a number of letters demonstrating that this legislation poses a serious threat to women's health be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1879

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Regretfully, I must oppose this amendment. As a member of the committee, I believe we have set upon a course which is the soundest course in terms of getting at any flaws that may exist among the variety of intelligence agencies. I think to establish another commission at this time is to very much undercut the oversight commitment and mandate of the Intelligence Committee. I believe it would be a mistake to do so at this time. There may be a time that would come where that might be the case, but I do not believe now is the time. We have set upon a course. The chairman is committed to public hearings. We will be having those hearings. The investigations are taking place. Regretfully, I must oppose this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No; the first one-third right away; the second third 4 months later; the third third in another 4 months. At 120, 240 days.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam President. Amendment No. 1848

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is at the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I request the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague Senator Kyl, to introduce a resolution to express deep concern about Iran's nuclear program. The time has come for the international community to speak with one voice and urge Iran to abandon its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. With the fall of the Hussein regime in Iraq, attention has turned to the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the recent revelations about its nuclear program. I am increasingly concerned that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons and substantially alter the balance of power in the Middle East. In December 2002, Iran admitted that--in addition to the known construction of a light water reactor complex in Bushehr with Russian assistance--it is building two facilities that could be used to develop fissile material for a nuclear weapon: a uranium enrichment facility at Nantanz and a heavy water production plant at Arak. According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Nantanz large-scale commercial plant, scheduled for completion in 2005, ``could produce approximately 400 to 500 kilograms of weapon-grade material annually, or enough for 15 to 20 nuclear weapons a year.'' The Arak facility, scheduled to begin in 2004, ``could produce between 8 and 10 kilograms of plutonium annually, enough for one or two nuclear weapons a year.'' The revelations are serious and deeply troubling. As Professor Gary Mihlhollin testified before the U.S.-Israel Joint Parliamentary Committee on September 17, 2003: ``Adding an Iranian nuclear weapon capability runs the risk of joining terrorism and weapons of mass destruction--a combination that our government considers the greatest security challenge of the 21st century.'' Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons demands the full attention of the United States and the international community, and a concerted and clear response to bring Iran into compliance with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran's assertion that its nuclear program is peaceful and is aimed at producing 6,000 megawatts of electricity is highly dubious given the efforts to conceal construction of the Nantanz and Arak facilities and its plentiful supplies of oil and gas reserves. In her testimony before the U.S.-Israel Joint Parliamentary Committee, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance, Paula A. DeSutter agreed and stated: ``Iran's attempts to explain why it needs an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle are simply not credible.'' In fact, United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have found traces of highly enriched, weapons grade uranium on Iranian nuclear equipment at two sites. I am pleased that the IAEA Board of Governor's passed resolution last week setting a deadline of October 31 for Iran to come clean about its nuclear program. As IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming stated: What the IAEA inspectors need is accelerated cooperation, full transparency on the part of Iran, so that we can clear up these questions in a matter of weeks, and not months and months. Talks have begun between the IAEA and Iranian authorities about Iran's nuclear program and the October 31 deadline. Our resolution supports the IAEA efforts to bring Iran into compliance with its international obligations. Among other things, it: deplores the Islamic Republic of Iran's development of a nuclear weapons program and for its failures to report material, facilities, and activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency as it is obligated to do pursuant to its safeguards agreement; concurs with the conclusion reached in the U.S. Department of State's Annual Noncompliance Report that Iran is pursuing a program to develop nuclear weapons; calls on the President of the United States to urge the Islamic Republic of Iran to accept in full the International Atomic Energy Agency's September 12, 2003 resolution; calls on member states of the United Nations to join the United States in preventing the Islamic Republic of Iran from continuing to pursue and develop programs or facilities that could be used in a nuclear weapons program; and calls on the United Nations Security Council to immediately undertake consideration of the threat to international peace and security posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program as well as such action as may be necessary, including a Security Council resolution, that would impose diplomatic and economic sanctions against Iran should Iran fail to live up to its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency by October 31, 2003. In addition, its calls on the Government of Iran to: to come into verifiable compliance with its obligations under the September 12, 2003 resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency; to come into verifiable compliance with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; and to immediately sign the Model Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would allow inspectors freer access to nuclear sites. The international community must stand together to put pressure on Tehran to live up to its commitments and, in particular, sign the additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to permit snap, short-notice inspections of Iran's declared and undeclared nuclear facilities. I, for one, had been hopeful that Iran in recent years had begun to take the necessary steps to rejoin international community. The election of President Mohammad Katemi in May, 1997 appeared to be a vote for moderation and engagement with the outside world. Yet, the clandestine nuclear weapons program, the continued support for terror, the numerous human rights abuses against religious minorities including Iranian Jews, the suppression of the student lead pro-democracy movement, and the continued uncompromising influence of the unelected hardliners in the Council of Guardians and the military lead me to conclude that we still have a long ways to go before we see a peaceful, stable, democratic Iran. I firmly believe that the Iranian people desire to see their country break its ties with the past and commit itself to a future based on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. If they are to realize that dream, the United States must work closely with our friend and allies in the international community to put pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, cease its support for terror, and become a positive force for change in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Hatch in introducing the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003, a bill to give law enforcement additional tools to fight the scourge of gang violence and to fund prevention programs to stop the cycle of gang violence. I thank and commend my good friend and colleague, Chairman Hatch, for his hard work in helping to develop this legislation. Since 1996, he and I have worked together to address the problem of gang violence in this country. We have now introduced legislation in each of the last four Congresses--the 104th, 105th, 106th, and 107th. None of that legislation became law. But we have not given up. The legislation we are introducing today addresses the many aspects of gang violence by focusing on new criminal offenses and increased penalties for individuals who engage in gang violence. Specifically, this legislation targets gang members who participate in criminal street gang by committing gang crimes like murder, sexual assault, robbery, and drug offenses to name a few, or by employing others to do so; recruit and use minors in gang crimes; commit violent crimes in furtherance of gang or drug trafficking activity; or travel in interstate commerce to intimidate and retaliate against witnesses. This legislation also makes it easier to prosecute certain 16 and 17- year-olds as adults if they are engaging in violent gang activity. We have also worked to provide for more cooperation between Federal and local law enforcement officials, and to make it easier for prosecutors to go after gang members who commit serious or violent crimes on behalf of their gangs. We offer this comprehensive legislation because the problem of gang violence continues to get worse. I concur in the sentiments expressed by Los Angeles Police Department Chief William Bratton when he stated, ``There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't.'' In 2002, there were over 650 homicides in Los Angeles, half of which were gang related. This year the Los Angeles Police Department reports approximately 400 murders and almost one-half of those murders are the result of gang violence. The United States Attorney in Los Angeles testified before the Judiciary Committee last month about the gang problem in her city. She stated that in Los Angeles County alone, conservative estimates put street gangs at about 1,000 in number. The number of individual gang members in those street gangs is 150,000. In addition, there are approximately another 20,000 gang members in Orange County, Ventura and San Bernardino Counties. I am often struck by how vicious gang crimes can be, and how damaging they are to the victims and to the surrounding community. Let me give a couple of examples from my own home city of San Francisco. In 2000, two rival gangs had a shoot out in San Francisco's Mission District. An innocent bystander was caught in the crossfire and shot through both legs. A brave eyewitness gave law enforcement the name of the shooting suspect, who was then arrested. The gang then tracked down the witness, put a 9 millimeter automatic to his head, and threatened to kill him for cooperating with the police. And just recently, on September 28, 2003, 7-week-old Glenn Timmy Maurice Molex was killed in his home during a drive-by shooting in a Bayview district neighborhood in San Francisco. Law enforcement believe that gang members may have been involved in the shooting. But this problem is not limited to any one city, of course. In 1980, there were gangs in 286 jurisdictions. Today, they are in over 1,500 jurisdictions. In 1980, there were about 2,000 gangs. Today, there are over 26,000 gangs. In 1980, there were about 100,000 gang members. Today, there are more than 750,000 gang members. I would like to explain how this legislation will help deter and punish gang-related crimes, and why Congress should act quickly to pass it. First, the bill includes tough 10-year sentences for gang recruitment. This will serve to punish anyone who recruits a member to join--or forces a member to stay in--a criminal street gang with the intent to have that person commit a serious violent crime or a drug crime. Second, if the person who was recruited was a minor, the offender will serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years. The purpose of this provision is to deter criminal gang recruitment. It is also to punish those who use minors to commit their crimes. And gangs specifically do go after juveniles because they know that, if the child is caught, he or she will probably receive lighter punishment than an adult. I believe that we need to punish gang recruitment of children very severely. This bill would do that. This legislation would also make it a crime for three or more people who work together to commit predicate gang crimes which are listed in the bill. Gang members who commit two or more predicate gang crimes or employ another individual to commit a gang crime would be punished under this new statute by up to 30 years in prison. If the predicate gang crime carries a greater penalty, the maximum would increase. If the gang member has previously been convicted of a predicate gang crime, that gang member's sentence would also increase. And because juveniles are being used to commit these gang crimes, if the gang member employs a minor to commit the gang crime, the gang member would face a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. The predicate gang crimes are felony crimes and include murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, gambling, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, arson, obstruction of justice, tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim or informant, burglary, sexual assault, carjacking, or selling or possessing a controlled substance, firearm offenses, and illegal transportation of an alien. The offenses that are listed as predicate gang crimes are those commonly pursued by gangs. One study of gangs in various countries found that law enforcement reported that 55 percent of gang members were involved in aggravated assaults; 33 percent in robberies; Fifty-eight percent in burglary and breaking and entering; Fifty-two percent in motor vehicle theft; and Seventy-two percent in drug sales. Numerous gangs illegally launder their illicit drug profits. These include Russian and West African criminal gangs as well as street gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, and Latin Kings. This bill also allows property derived from gang crimes to be forfeited. Third, the bill creates a new, RICO-like, anti-gang law to help prosecutors target the more serious gangs and gang members. In response to the problems of mafia-violence, the racketeering statute was created to punish violent crimes that are in furtherance of a racketeering enterprise. This legislation will do the same for violent crimes that are in furtherance of gang activity or drug activity. The gang and drug crimes are those which I have described earlier-- murder, carjacking, drug distribution, robbery, firearms violations, and sexual assault. These crimes represent the heart of gang activity and those who commit them must be met with tough penalties. The penalties range from a maximum of 10 years to the death penalty if death results from the crime. This legislation also expands the Travel Act. The Travel Act allows Federal prosecutors to charge certain interstate crimes such as extortion, bribery, and arson, and for business enterprises involving gambling, liquor, drugs, or prostitution. This statute was passed in 1961 also with mafia-related criminal activity in mind. Now criminal street gangs travel interstate for another purpose which strikes at the heart of our system of justice--intimidating and retaliating against witnesses, jurors, informants, and victims. This bill would make it a crime to travel across state lines for that purpose and would allow for a sentence up to life imprisonment for someone who commits that crime. Defendants who violate the Travel Act and kill someone will also face a possible death sentence for such actions. This bill should ensure that prosecutors can use the Travel Act to act against crimes caused by the new Mafia: criminal street gangs. The bill also amends several criminal statutes to address violent crimes frequently or typically committed by gangs. These crimes include carjacking, assault, manslaughter, racketeering, illegal gun transfers to drug traffickers or violent criminals, the use of firearms in drug trafficking and violent crimes, and murder-for- hire. These amendments make it easier for prosecutors to prove these crimes by eliminating or modifying the intent requirement for the crimes or by increasing the penalties for violations. This legislation also changes the venue statute for capital cases so that capital cases can be brought where the murder occurs or where the racketeering conspiracy, drug conspiracy, or criminal street gang operates. So, if the gang, commits the bulk of its crimes in one State but commits a capital crime in another State, all of the crimes can be tried in the same State where the gang focused its criminal activity and the government can seek the appropriate punishment for that crime. The jury will then get the whole picture of how the gang operated and what they did. Where a 16-year-old or 17-year-old has committed a Federal serious violent felony, this legislation facilitates Federal prosecution of such offenders. Surveys in 1996 and 1999 showed that 37-50 percent of gang members were under the age of 18. This legislation also calls upon the United States Sentencing Commission to create new sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders who are charged as adults to address concerns specific to offenders of that age. The bill permits the Attorney General to designate high intensity interstate gang activity areas, HIIGAs, and authorizes $100,000,000 for each of 5 years for these task forces. These provisions are modeled after similar provisions creating high intensity drug trafficking areas, HIDTAs. HIDTAs are joint efforts of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies whose leaders work together to assess regional drug threats, design strategies to combat those threats, and develop initiatives to implement the strategies. HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies. HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies. HIDTAs integrate and synchronize efforts to reduce drug trafficking. They eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and maximize resources. And they improve intelligence and information sharing both within and between regions. HIDTAs are necessary because drug trafficking tends to be ``head quartered'' in certain areas of the country, from which it spreads to other areas. Moreover, drug traffickers have been highly organized and developed sophisticated interstate and international operations. These points are also true for many criminal gangs. So we have erected a new program of cooperation between law enforcement agencies to attack the gang problem like we attack the drug problem. This bill authorizes $75 million over the next 5 years for the hiring of Federal prosecutors to identify and prosecute significant gangs within their districts under the Project Safe Neighborhoods program. Across the Nation, 94 Project Safe Neighborhoods Task Forces are working to implement the coordinated strategy to reduce gun violence, led by the U.S. Attorney in each of the Federal judicial districts. U.S. Attorneys have been working side by side with all law enforcement participants in their communities to identify the most pressing crime problems and attack those problems both through prevention and aggressive prosecution. Finally, this legislation would authorize $100 million dollars over the next 5 years for States to update their technology, create and fund gang prevention and community prosecution programs, and create and expand witness protection programs. Witness protection is a critical part of reducing gang violence. The president of the National District Attorneys Association, Robert McCulloch, who is also the district attorney in St. Louis, testified last month before the Judiciary Committee. He said that while his office is able to put witnesses in motels for a couple of days or a week or is able to send them on a bus ride to a relative's house, the solutions are not long-term. And as a result, the witnesses come back and are at risk. That is not acceptable. If witnesses are not confident that they will remain safe, they will not talk to law enforcement. It is as simple as that. We must give local and State law enforcement the tools to keep witnesses alive. While criminal street gangs flourish in certain urban areas such as Los Angeles and Chicago, they typically use these cities as bases to invade more rural locales. And the characteristics of a criminal street gang are extremely diverse. While some criminal street gangs are looser-affiliations of violent individuals who work together in furtherance of their gang, there are also some very highly disciplined, hierarchical ``corporations,'' often encompassing numerous jurisdictions. MS-13, an international gang with roots in El Salvador's civil war has spread to at least 28 States and includes more than 8,000 members. In this gang there is no real command structure or national charter. And in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, criminal street gangs are largely neighborhood-based associations of lifelong friends. They use no flashy names or symbols, but they bank together to commit crimes and sell drugs. In the past three years, members of just three neighborhood-based gangs in Washington, D.C., called the 1-5 Mob, the K Street Crew and Murder Inc. by prosecutors, have been convicted of 57 murders and dozens of assaults and weapons offenses for gang crimes committed over the past ten years. On the other hand, there are some very organized and structured ruthless gangs in this country. The Gangster Disciples Nation, for example, has a chairman of the board, two boards of directors, one for prisons and one for streets), Governors, regents, area coordinators, enforcers, and ``shorties,'' youth who staff drug-selling sites and help with drug deals. From 1987 to 1994, this gang was responsible for killing more than 200 people. Moreover, one-half of their arrests were for drug offenses and only one-third for nonlethal violence. And just like MS-13, these gangs pop up all across the country. In 1996, the Gangster Disciples Nation and other Chicago-based gangs were in 110 jurisdictions in 35 states. Members of the Los-Angeles based 18th Street Gang have migrated outside of California into the southwest border up into the Pacific Northwest, out to New Jersey, Mexico, and El Salvador. Los Angeles gang members have been tracked to Indianapolis, Oklahoma, Omaha, Raleigh and St. Louis. This bill is a necessary measure to target increasingly violent, increasingly sophisticated, and increasingly national gangs. This is not just a California problem, or a Chicago problem, or a District of Columbia problem--this problem is a nationwide in its scope, and we must craft a nationwide solution. This legislation will tackle that problem head-on. We simply cannot wait any longer. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Hatch in introducing the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003, a bill to give law enforcement additional tools to fight the scourge of gang violence and to fund prevention programs to stop the cycle of gang violence. I thank and commend my good friend and colleague, Chairman Hatch, for his hard work in helping to develop this legislation. Since 1996, he and I have worked together to address the problem of gang violence in this country. We have now introduced legislation in each of the last four Congresses--the 104th, 105th, 106th, and 107th. None of that legislation became law. But we have not given up. The legislation we are introducing today addresses the many aspects of gang violence by focusing on new criminal offenses and increased penalties for individuals who engage in gang violence. Specifically, this legislation targets gang members who participate in criminal street gang by committing gang crimes like murder, sexual assault, robbery, and drug offenses to name a few, or by employing others to do so; recruit and use minors in gang crimes; commit violent crimes in furtherance of gang or drug trafficking activity; or travel in interstate commerce to intimidate and retaliate against witnesses. This legislation also makes it easier to prosecute certain 16 and 17- year-olds as adults if they are engaging in violent gang activity. We have also worked to provide for more cooperation between Federal and local law enforcement officials, and to make it easier for prosecutors to go after gang members who commit serious or violent crimes on behalf of their gangs. We offer this comprehensive legislation because the problem of gang violence continues to get worse. I concur in the sentiments expressed by Los Angeles Police Department Chief William Bratton when he stated, ``There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't.'' In 2002, there were over 650 homicides in Los Angeles, half of which were gang related. This year the Los Angeles Police Department reports approximately 400 murders and almost one-half of those murders are the result of gang violence. The United States Attorney in Los Angeles testified before the Judiciary Committee last month about the gang problem in her city. She stated that in Los Angeles County alone, conservative estimates put street gangs at about 1,000 in number. The number of individual gang members in those street gangs is 150,000. In addition, there are approximately another 20,000 gang members in Orange County, Ventura and San Bernardino Counties. I am often struck by how vicious gang crimes can be, and how damaging they are to the victims and to the surrounding community. Let me give a couple of examples from my own home city of San Francisco. In 2000, two rival gangs had a shoot out in San Francisco's Mission District. An innocent bystander was caught in the crossfire and shot through both legs. A brave eyewitness gave law enforcement the name of the shooting suspect, who was then arrested. The gang then tracked down the witness, put a 9 millimeter automatic to his head, and threatened to kill him for cooperating with the police. And just recently, on September 28, 2003, 7-week-old Glenn Timmy Maurice Molex was killed in his home during a drive-by shooting in a Bayview district neighborhood in San Francisco. Law enforcement believe that gang members may have been involved in the shooting. But this problem is not limited to any one city, of course. In 1980, there were gangs in 286 jurisdictions. Today, they are in over 1,500 jurisdictions. In 1980, there were about 2,000 gangs. Today, there are over 26,000 gangs. In 1980, there were about 100,000 gang members. Today, there are more than 750,000 gang members. I would like to explain how this legislation will help deter and punish gang-related crimes, and why Congress should act quickly to pass it. First, the bill includes tough 10-year sentences for gang recruitment. This will serve to punish anyone who recruits a member to join--or forces a member to stay in--a criminal street gang with the intent to have that person commit a serious violent crime or a drug crime. Second, if the person who was recruited was a minor, the offender will serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years. The purpose of this provision is to deter criminal gang recruitment. It is also to punish those who use minors to commit their crimes. And gangs specifically do go after juveniles because they know that, if the child is caught, he or she will probably receive lighter punishment than an adult. I believe that we need to punish gang recruitment of children very severely. This bill would do that. This legislation would also make it a crime for three or more people who work together to commit predicate gang crimes which are listed in the bill. Gang members who commit two or more predicate gang crimes or employ another individual to commit a gang crime would be punished under this new statute by up to 30 years in prison. If the predicate gang crime carries a greater penalty, the maximum would increase. If the gang member has previously been convicted of a predicate gang crime, that gang member's sentence would also increase. And because juveniles are being used to commit these gang crimes, if the gang member employs a minor to commit the gang crime, the gang member would face a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. The predicate gang crimes are felony crimes and include murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, gambling, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, arson, obstruction of justice, tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim or informant, burglary, sexual assault, carjacking, or selling or possessing a controlled substance, firearm offenses, and illegal transportation of an alien. The offenses that are listed as predicate gang crimes are those commonly pursued by gangs. One study of gangs in various countries found that law enforcement reported that 55 percent of gang members were involved in aggravated assaults; 33 percent in robberies; Fifty-eight percent in burglary and breaking and entering; Fifty-two percent in motor vehicle theft; and Seventy-two percent in drug sales. Numerous gangs illegally launder their illicit drug profits. These include Russian and West African criminal gangs as well as street gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, and Latin Kings. This bill also allows property derived from gang crimes to be forfeited. Third, the bill creates a new, RICO-like, anti-gang law to help prosecutors target the more serious gangs and gang members. In response to the problems of mafia-violence, the racketeering statute was created to punish violent crimes that are in furtherance of a racketeering enterprise. This legislation will do the same for violent crimes that are in furtherance of gang activity or drug activity. The gang and drug crimes are those which I have described earlier-- murder, carjacking, drug distribution, robbery, firearms violations, and sexual assault. These crimes represent the heart of gang activity and those who commit them must be met with tough penalties. The penalties range from a maximum of 10 years to the death penalty if death results from the crime. This legislation also expands the Travel Act. The Travel Act allows Federal prosecutors to charge certain interstate crimes such as extortion, bribery, and arson, and for business enterprises involving gambling, liquor, drugs, or prostitution. This statute was passed in 1961 also with mafia-related criminal activity in mind. Now criminal street gangs travel interstate for another purpose which strikes at the heart of our system of justice--intimidating and retaliating against witnesses, jurors, informants, and victims. This bill would make it a crime to travel across state lines for that purpose and would allow for a sentence up to life imprisonment for someone who commits that crime. Defendants who violate the Travel Act and kill someone will also face a possible death sentence for such actions. This bill should ensure that prosecutors can use the Travel Act to act against crimes caused by the new Mafia: criminal street gangs. The bill also amends several criminal statutes to address violent crimes frequently or typically committed by gangs. These crimes include carjacking, assault, manslaughter, racketeering, illegal gun transfers to drug traffickers or violent criminals, the use of firearms in drug trafficking and violent crimes, and murder-for- hire. These amendments make it easier for prosecutors to prove these crimes by eliminating or modifying the intent requirement for the crimes or by increasing the penalties for violations. This legislation also changes the venue statute for capital cases so that capital cases can be brought where the murder occurs or where the racketeering conspiracy, drug conspiracy, or criminal street gang operates. So, if the gang, commits the bulk of its crimes in one State but commits a capital crime in another State, all of the crimes can be tried in the same State where the gang focused its criminal activity and the government can seek the appropriate punishment for that crime. The jury will then get the whole picture of how the gang operated and what they did. Where a 16-year-old or 17-year-old has committed a Federal serious violent felony, this legislation facilitates Federal prosecution of such offenders. Surveys in 1996 and 1999 showed that 37-50 percent of gang members were under the age of 18. This legislation also calls upon the United States Sentencing Commission to create new sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders who are charged as adults to address concerns specific to offenders of that age. The bill permits the Attorney General to designate high intensity interstate gang activity areas, HIIGAs, and authorizes $100,000,000 for each of 5 years for these task forces. These provisions are modeled after similar provisions creating high intensity drug trafficking areas, HIDTAs. HIDTAs are joint efforts of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies whose leaders work together to assess regional drug threats, design strategies to combat those threats, and develop initiatives to implement the strategies. HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies. HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies. HIDTAs integrate and synchronize efforts to reduce drug trafficking. They eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and maximize resources. And they improve intelligence and information sharing both within and between regions. HIDTAs are necessary because drug trafficking tends to be ``head quartered'' in certain areas of the country, from which it spreads to other areas. Moreover, drug traffickers have been highly organized and developed sophisticated interstate and international operations. These points are also true for many criminal gangs. So we have erected a new program of cooperation between law enforcement agencies to attack the gang problem like we attack the drug problem. This bill authorizes $75 million over the next 5 years for the hiring of Federal prosecutors to identify and prosecute significant gangs within their districts under the Project Safe Neighborhoods program. Across the Nation, 94 Project Safe Neighborhoods Task Forces are working to implement the coordinated strategy to reduce gun violence, led by the U.S. Attorney in each of the Federal judicial districts. U.S. Attorneys have been working side by side with all law enforcement participants in their communities to identify the most pressing crime problems and attack those problems both through prevention and aggressive prosecution. Finally, this legislation would authorize $100 million dollars over the next 5 years for States to update their technology, create and fund gang prevention and community prosecution programs, and create and expand witness protection programs. Witness protection is a critical part of reducing gang violence. The president of the National District Attorneys Association, Robert McCulloch, who is also the district attorney in St. Louis, testified last month before the Judiciary Committee. He said that while his office is able to put witnesses in motels for a couple of days or a week or is able to send them on a bus ride to a relative's house, the solutions are not long-term. And as a result, the witnesses come back and are at risk. That is not acceptable. If witnesses are not confident that they will remain safe, they will not talk to law enforcement. It is as simple as that. We must give local and State law enforcement the tools to keep witnesses alive. While criminal street gangs flourish in certain urban areas such as Los Angeles and Chicago, they typically use these cities as bases to invade more rural locales. And the characteristics of a criminal street gang are extremely diverse. While some criminal street gangs are looser-affiliations of violent individuals who work together in furtherance of their gang, there are also some very highly disciplined, hierarchical ``corporations,'' often encompassing numerous jurisdictions. MS-13, an international gang with roots in El Salvador's civil war has spread to at least 28 States and includes more than 8,000 members. In this gang there is no real command structure or national charter. And in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, criminal street gangs are largely neighborhood-based associations of lifelong friends. They use no flashy names or symbols, but they bank together to commit crimes and sell drugs. In the past three years, members of just three neighborhood-based gangs in Washington, D.C., called the 1-5 Mob, the K Street Crew and Murder Inc. by prosecutors, have been convicted of 57 murders and dozens of assaults and weapons offenses for gang crimes committed over the past ten years. On the other hand, there are some very organized and structured ruthless gangs in this country. The Gangster Disciples Nation, for example, has a chairman of the board, two boards of directors, one for prisons and one for streets), Governors, regents, area coordinators, enforcers, and ``shorties,'' youth who staff drug-selling sites and help with drug deals. From 1987 to 1994, this gang was responsible for killing more than 200 people. Moreover, one-half of their arrests were for drug offenses and only one-third for nonlethal violence. And just like MS-13, these gangs pop up all across the country. In 1996, the Gangster Disciples Nation and other Chicago-based gangs were in 110 jurisdictions in 35 states. Members of the Los-Angeles based 18th Street Gang have migrated outside of California into the southwest border up into the Pacific Northwest, out to New Jersey, Mexico, and El Salvador. Los Angeles gang members have been tracked to Indianapolis, Oklahoma, Omaha, Raleigh and St. Louis. This bill is a necessary measure to target increasingly violent, increasingly sophisticated, and increasingly national gangs. This is not just a California problem, or a Chicago problem, or a District of Columbia problem--this problem is a nationwide in its scope, and we must craft a nationwide solution. This legislation will tackle that problem head-on. We simply cannot wait any longer. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003.