Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the efforts of Senators Levin, Voinovich, Hutchison, myself, and others to modify the USA PATRIOT Act formula for homeland security grants. This formula, as currently interpreted by the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, greatly disadvantages larger States. Unfortunately, as Senator Levin stated earlier, it looks as though we will not be able to use the Homeland Security Appropriations bill to make such a modification. Any such amendment would face a point of order and fail. However, we will be back. I intend to continue to raise this issue in the Senate until we finally change existing law to ensure that the DHS has the authority to distribute homeland security money fairly to all States. In my view, the Department should distribute homeland security funds according to population or, at a minimum, according to threat and vulnerability assessments, location of critical infrastructure, and population density. On March 7, 2003, DHS released their State-by-State allocations for the $566 million State Homeland Security Grant Program. Although this program is described as being distributed on the basis of population, smaller States received a higher level of funding on a per capita basis than larger States. For instance, California received $1.33 per capita while Wyoming received $9.78 per capita. This means that residents of Wyoming received more than five times what residents of California received. The national average was $1.98 per capita. However, if you look at all the homeland security grants awarded by the DHS Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, for FY 2003, the numbers are even worse. This fiscal year, California received $4.85 per capita in ODP homeland security grants and Wyoming received $35.67 per capita. In other words, residents of Wyoming received more than seven times what residents of California received. I do not want to pick on Wyoming or focus inordinately on California. The issue is not about any State in particular. It is about the fact that States with large populations and large amounts of critical infrastructure are more vulnerable to terrorism and also generally subject to more credible terrorist threats. However, since I represent California in this distinguished body, I do want to explain why I believe that California--as other populous States has been shortchanged on homeland security grants. California is what people in the counterterrorism field called a ``target-rich'' environment. We have two of the biggest seaports in the country, Disneyland, the Golden Gate Bridge, two of the biggest ports in the country, some of the busiest airports in the country, and much else as well. Moreover, with the release of a congressional report today on intelligence failures by the FBI and CIA, the American people now know that at least several of the September 11 hijackers had numerous links with California. And, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I can assure you that terrorists and their sympathizers continue to operate in California. Finally, we have all heard about credible threats to important tourism and commercial sites in California--and those are just the ones that have become public. However, in spite of all this, my State received this fiscal year less than one-seventh per capita of ODP homeland security grants than the least populous State--a State that is not a target-rich environment, has little if any connection with any terrorists, and has been subject to few if any terrorist threats. In my view, that is absurd. Americans in every State should be more afraid knowing that a disproportionate amount of homeland security money is flowing into States that may not need that money. The reason that homeland security grant allocations favor small States is because of the way that ODP applies Sec. 1014 of the PATRIOT Act. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, ODP gives each State .75 percent and each territory .25 percent of the appropriation for homeland security grants. For the 50 States and five territories, these amounts total approximately 40 percent of the total appropriation. However, the USA PATRIOT Act is silent on how ODP should distribute the remaining 60 percent. ODP has opted to distribute the remaining 60 percent based on population. It is worth pointing out that the USA PATRIOT Act does not require that the .75 minimums be allocated first and then the remainder distributed according to population. ODP could, under the USA PATRIOT Act, distribute all the money according to population and then bump up any State that has not received .75 percent. If ODP followed this method, it would mean millions of additional dollars for more populous States. I would urge ODP to look into using such a method. In any event, because of the USA PATRIOT Act formula, California only received $149 million of the $1.87 billion appropriated in FY 2003 for the ODP State homeland security grant program about 8 percent of the total. However, California has over 12 percent of the population and a disproportionate amount of the country's critical infrastructure--all terrorist targets of opportunity. If this money had been allocated according to population, California would have received $76 million more for homeland security just this fiscal year. There is no question that the USA PATRIOT Act formula greatly disadvantages California and other States with high threat potential. These are States that possess densely populated areas and critical infrastructure such as landmark buildings, large gathering places, stadiums, amusement parks, tall buildings, underground transit, bridges, and ports. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge has made this very point over and over. For example, in a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, he expressed frustration with the USA PATRIOT Act formula and urged that Congress enact legislation that would require such money to be distributed based on the likely terrorist theat and vulnerability of a given area. Most reasonable observers agree. It is ludicrous to pour homeland security money into small, rural States that are at little risk of terrorist attack and shortchange States that have densely populated centers and/or have critical infrastructure. It is also worth noting that the .75 small State minimums are not applied to other grant programs. In an exhaustive survey of Federal grant programs, we could find only two grant programs that used such a high percentage for State minimums: State homeland security grants and sport fish restoration grants. While an argument could be made that perhaps less populous States deserve more sport fish restoration money, that argument fails with regard to homeland security. The fact remains that the areas most vulnerable to terrorist attack are large cities and those with critical infrastructure, which tend to be in more populous States. Grant programs other than for homeland security or sport fishing restoration have either no small State minimums, percentages ranging from .25 percent to .50 percent, or minimum dollar figures. The current formula for allocating homeland security grants is unfair and illogical. And, to be brutally honest, it wastes taxpayers' money by sending to it to areas where it may not be needed. I urge my colleagues to support efforts to modify this formula. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart listing Homeland Security grants per capita.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, during the height of the war in Iraq, I came to the floor to honor those from California who had made the ultimate sacrifice. And I paid tribute to these service members who embody the very best of the American spirit, those willing to give their own lives so we and others around the world can enjoy the blessings of freedom. At least eight men with California connections have died in Iraq since May 1 due either to accident or hostile enemy fire. I strongly believe that they and the others from across our country must be awarded the same respect and admiration as any American, in any war, at any time in our history. SGT Atanasio Haro Marin Jr., 27, known as ``Nacho'' to his family, was born in Momax, Mexico, and lived there with his mother while his father worked in California to support seven children. The family was reunited in Los Angeles when he was 2 years old, moving to suburban Baldwin Park. He competed on the Sierra Vista High School track team and also ran in a Los Angeles marathon. Upon graduation, he joined the National Guard. When his tour of duty ended, he transferred to the Army. Sergeant Marin was assigned to Battery C, 3rd Battalion, 16th Field Artillery Regiment, and died on June 3, when his checkpoint south of Balad, Iraq, was attacked with gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades. He was 27 years old. He last saw his family during a January leave, 2 months before he left for the Middle East. He called home twice in April and sent a Mother's Day card that read: ``Don't worry, be happy.'' A native of Eureka, CA, CPT Andrew David La Mont was the youngest of nine children and came from a family with strong ties to the military. His father and grandfather were career military men. ``He was a tremendous son and a fantastic marine,'' said his mother, Vivian La Mont. He was single and had served with the Marines since graduating from San Diego State University in 1994. La Mont had previously served in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Twenty-one-year-old LCPL Jason Moore was described as a rather wild young man with a boundless spirit, whose enthusiasm led him to the Marine Corps. Moore died on May 19 in Iraq when the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter he helped crew crashed into a canal. Four other Camp Pendleton marines were killed in the same incident. His parents, Bill and Gale Moore, buried their only son at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery. He graduated from San Marcos High School in 2000. His neighbor Deane Terry said Moore was clearly bound for Marine aviation from a young age, after his interest in the Civil Air Patrol and radio-controlled planes. ``He was going to continue to aim high one way or another,'' said Terry, whose son was Moore's playmate. Terry described the day Moore returned from Marine boot camp and stood straight and proud in his uniform in the Terry living room. ``He was so excited to be a Marine,'' said Terry, who added that Moore joined the high school swim team just to prepare himself physically for the service. ``He went at the Corps at full speed, not hesitating, not looking back.'' PVT Jose Gonzalez spoke very little English when he arrived as a freshman at John Glenn High School in Norwalk, CA. By the time he graduated in 2001, he had earned high honors in college preparatory classes. The Mexican native also played varsity baseball, becoming a player who coach Bill Seals could count on at nearly any position: pitching or playing in the outfield or infield. He always wore his team hat to school, every day, year-round. The coach said it was about pride. With his diploma in hand, Gonzalez embraced another part of American life: the military. He entered the Marine Corps 2 months after graduation and became a supply clerk. Gonzalez deployed to Iraq with Camp Pendleton's 1st Force Service Support Group and survived the war. On May 12, he was killed when ordnance he was handling detonated. He was just 19 years old. In Norwalk, Gonzalez is survived by parents and two teenage sisters. Gonzalez was not forgotten at his old high school. John Glenn students have created a memorial on the auditorium stage--they leave flowers, candles, and signs offering tribute to the soft-spoken man who died for his adopted country. The last time Paul Tokuzo Nakamura, of Santa Fe Springs, called home from Iraq was on Father's Day, when he told his family that all was well. ``The first thing he told me was that he had showered and had steak for dinner,'' his father, Paul Nakamura, said Wednesday. ``We know he was lying. He didn't want us to worry.'' The 21-year-old Nakamura joined the Army Reserves out of patriotism despite his father's protests. ``One day he said, 'Mom, Dad, I'm so proud I was born in the United States,''' his mother, Yoko, 55, told those gathered at a memorial service. Nakamura was stationed with the 437th Medical Company, based in Colorado Springs, CO. He was sent to the Middle East in February and was killed on June 19, when the ambulance he was in was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in Al Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad. ``He was a rascal--you would tell him not to do something, and he would do it anyway,'' said his sister, Pearl. He was a lifeguard who taught swimming at the Santa Fe Springs Aquatic Center since he was 17 and was on his high school's water polo team. Twenty-five-year-old Army Ranger Andrew Chris followed in the footsteps of his relatives when he joined the military in 2001. Both of his grandfathers served in World War II, his father served in the Army, his uncle in Special Forces and his brother Derek in the Navy. It was a way to connect with the generations of his family. Chris was killed in combat operations on June 25, just a few days after arriving in Iraq. Ordnance exploded near the vehicle Chris was riding in, and the Army Ranger died immediately. Before Chris joined the Army, he lived for 5 years in California, most of them in San Diego. After he graduated from high school in Florence, AL, he moved to Lemoore, south of Fresno, to live with his brother. He spent many weekends exploring and camping in the mountains of California and Arizona. He was also well read, with a special interest in World War II and planned to teach high school history when he completed his military career. Andrew Chris was quiet and reserved, and extremely loyal to family and friends. He had visited his brother Derek's family just before he was sent to Iraq. Josh Chris said knowing that his brother died doing what he loved has made it easier to accept. ``He was spiritually and emotionally ready.'' From the outset of the conflict in Iraq, I have learned a great deal about those who have died from the local newspapers. Yet there have been a few individuals whose stories remain largely untold to the public. One of those is Marine CPL Douglas Jose Marencoreyes, a 28-year-old from Chino, who was assigned to the Light Armored Vehicle-Air Defense Battery, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion. He was killed when the transport truck he was riding in rolled over. I also learned relatively little about 19-year-old Ryan Cox, from Derby, KS, who was stationed at 29 Palms, CA, and died due to a noncombat weapons discharge on June 15. Still, we know that he loved to surf and skydive and that, according to his mother, Robin Hamilton, he was doing what he wanted to do. ``He was serving his country. I couldn't have asked for a better son.'' Nor, for that matter, could the United States. We must never forget to remind those left behind--mothers and fathers, wives and children-- of how proud we are of America's brave sons and daughters. We must never lose sight of their achievement or their sacrifice, not to mention the enormous sacrifices made by their families, the ones left behind.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have never heard a speech that better charted the values of free peoples--not only of free peoples in our country but I think free peoples all over the world. I have never heard a speech that was as incredibly positive as this speech, that called on everyone to rise to their best value, to stand to their best commitment, and to perform as free-loving peoples should everywhere. On a scale of 1 to 10, Mr. President, that speech, in my book, was a 10. I have never heard better. And I have never seen a course charted that is sounder, truer, or can redound in better benefits for freedom- loving people. I salute Tony Blair, the distinguished Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Chafee to introduce a bill to give States the flexibility to provide family planning services to low-income women who do not qualify for Medicaid. Under current law, in order to qualify for family planning services provided by the Medicaid program, a women would either have to have children and an income level below a threshold set by the State, ranging from 15-86 percent of the Federal poverty level, or be pregnant and have an income up to 133 percent of the poverty level; Federal law allows States to raise this income eligibility level to 185 percent, if they desire. If a woman qualifies because of pregnancy, she is automatically eligible for family planning services for 60 days following delivery. After those 60 days, the woman's Medicaid eligibility expires. If a State wants to provide Medicaid family planning services to additional populations of low-income women, they must apply to the Federal Government for a waiver. Currently, 18 States have waivers approved by the Federal Government. The waiver process is extremely cumbersome and time consuming, often taking up to three years to receive approval from the Federal Government. This bill would once and for all allow States to provide crucial family planning to low-income women under the Medicaid program. It would eliminate the waiver process for these services and would give authority back to the States to determine what populations of low income women they want to provide family planning services to. California currently receives $100 million annually, until 2004, as part of its five-year waiver to provide family planning services to low income women. with these funds, California provides services to more than 900,000 women each year. The State estimates that because of these services, at least 50,000 unintended pregnancies are prevented each year. In addition to contraceptives, the family planning funds are used for sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment, HIV screening and counseling, basic infertility services and pregnancy testing and counseling. Officials involved in the program estimate that for every $1 invested in family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and health-care related costs. In California, it is estimated that providing low-income women with access to family planning will save the State more then $900 million over the course of the five-year waiver. I believe this legislation is more important now than ever. Each year, approximately 3 million pregnacies, or about half of all pregnancies, are unintended. Increasing access to family planning services could help avert these 3 million unintended pregnancies and all the decisions and costs associated with either continuing or terminating a pregnancy. Family planning services give women the necessary tools to space the births of their children, which improves women's health and reduces rates of infant mortality. Medicaid family planning is also cost effective. For every $1 invested in family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and health care- related costs. Family planning and reproductive health services are much more than just accessing contraceptives. Services provided include screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, basic inferility services and pregnancy testing and counseling. Women can receive pap smears and breast exams, which are crucial to detecting cervical and breast cancer. Low income women deserve access to family planning and reproductive health services. And States should not have to ask the Federal Government for permission to use Medicaid funds to provide these essential services. We can afford to shut the door on those who cannot otherwise afford family planning and reproductive health services. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, I would like to join my colleague and friend, Senator Boxer, in support of this request. It is important that we assist in these naval and diplomatic educational and training programs that have been continued through the work of Sail San Francisco.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Chafee to introduce a bill to give States the flexibility to provide family planning services to low-income women who do not qualify for Medicaid. Under current law, in order to qualify for family planning services provided by the Medicaid program, a women would either have to have children and an income level below a threshold set by the State, ranging from 15-86 percent of the Federal poverty level, or be pregnant and have an income up to 133 percent of the poverty level; Federal law allows States to raise this income eligibility level to 185 percent, if they desire. If a woman qualifies because of pregnancy, she is automatically eligible for family planning services for 60 days following delivery. After those 60 days, the woman's Medicaid eligibility expires. If a State wants to provide Medicaid family planning services to additional populations of low-income women, they must apply to the Federal Government for a waiver. Currently, 18 States have waivers approved by the Federal Government. The waiver process is extremely cumbersome and time consuming, often taking up to three years to receive approval from the Federal Government. This bill would once and for all allow States to provide crucial family planning to low-income women under the Medicaid program. It would eliminate the waiver process for these services and would give authority back to the States to determine what populations of low income women they want to provide family planning services to. California currently receives $100 million annually, until 2004, as part of its five-year waiver to provide family planning services to low income women. with these funds, California provides services to more than 900,000 women each year. The State estimates that because of these services, at least 50,000 unintended pregnancies are prevented each year. In addition to contraceptives, the family planning funds are used for sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment, HIV screening and counseling, basic infertility services and pregnancy testing and counseling. Officials involved in the program estimate that for every $1 invested in family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and health-care related costs. In California, it is estimated that providing low-income women with access to family planning will save the State more then $900 million over the course of the five-year waiver. I believe this legislation is more important now than ever. Each year, approximately 3 million pregnacies, or about half of all pregnancies, are unintended. Increasing access to family planning services could help avert these 3 million unintended pregnancies and all the decisions and costs associated with either continuing or terminating a pregnancy. Family planning services give women the necessary tools to space the births of their children, which improves women's health and reduces rates of infant mortality. Medicaid family planning is also cost effective. For every $1 invested in family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and health care- related costs. Family planning and reproductive health services are much more than just accessing contraceptives. Services provided include screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, basic inferility services and pregnancy testing and counseling. Women can receive pap smears and breast exams, which are crucial to detecting cervical and breast cancer. Low income women deserve access to family planning and reproductive health services. And States should not have to ask the Federal Government for permission to use Medicaid funds to provide these essential services. We can afford to shut the door on those who cannot otherwise afford family planning and reproductive health services. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern that the fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense appropriations bill contains no additional funds for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is simply unacceptable and raises serious concerns about the administration's long-term intentions in both countries. Given the commitments of the men and women of our Armed Forces all over the world and the risks they face in defense of our freedoms and national security, I am committed to providing the tools they need to perform their jobs at the highest level. It is surprising and troubling, then, that two of the most significant and critical deployment of U.S. troops in years--Afghanistan and Iraq--do not receive funding in the fiscal year 2004 Defense appropriations bill. Clearly, these are not emergency situations that have only recently come to our attention. These are ongoing military operations that will most likely require a substantive American presence for years to come. One hundred forty-five thousand U.S. troops are currently serving in Iraq facing almost daily attacks from guerilla forces. Eighty-one Americans have died since the President declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003. In Afghanistan, 8,500 U.S. troops are searching for remnants of al- Qaida and the Taliban and trying to stabilize the interim government of Hamid Karzai. Just yesterday, more than a year and a half after the fall of the Taliban, a U.S. Special forces convoy came under attack by unknown gunmen using small arms and explosive devices. Americans are putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan and we cannot find any funds for them in this bill. These operations are certainly not cheap. During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that the U.S. has spent nearly $4 billion a month in Iraq since January and is spending an additional $700 million a month in Afghanistan. He continued that he did not know if the figures for Iraq would go up or down in the next fiscal year or how much the administration intends to propose to Congress for military operations in Iraq. Surely the Defense Department, in fact, has some idea about the funds it needs for Afghanistan and Iraq--and those commitments should be reflected in this bill. Silence on this matter causes me great concern that our troops will serve far longer than we are being told and the cost will be far greater than we have been led to believe. I urge the administration to level with the American people and this Congress about the costs of our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense appropriations bill is exactly the appropriate mechanism to do just that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address this year's Federal budget deficit, which is now expected to exceed $450 billion. This will be the largest Federal deficit on record. This is a staggering $680 billion increase from the $236 billion budget surplus the Federal Government ran 3 years ago. And who knows how much the true deficit may in fact be if, a few months from now, the projection increases again due to the ongoing costs of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. Reconstruction costs are now running $4.8 billion per month, or $58 billion annually, which is well above what we have budgeted. According to the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates for balanced budgets, ``The first six months of the 108th Congress were the most fiscally irresponsible in recent memory.'' The members of this Chamber and the American public should know the simple truth: putting our economy back on track is even more difficult in the face of deficits of this magnitude. And next year, the on-budget deficit will likely top $600 billion. In my 10-year career in the Senate, there has never been a greater need for fiscal discipline than there is now. The then-record $290 billion deficit we faced in 1992 required some very tough choices to be made but the choices that lie ahead will be even harder. It is incumbent on the President and the House and Senate leadership to prepare the country for those choices. Instead, the President and the Republican leadership in Congress have cut taxes with abandon while increasing spending at a rate faster than at any point during the past 10 years. Discretionary spending increased by 13.1 percent between 2002 and 2001, and is expected to increase by 9.7 percent this year over 2002 levels. Much of that spending has been necessary to fight the war on terror, recover from the attacks of September 11, and improve our homeland security. Nevertheless, such spending cannot be sustained if tax revenues plummet due to ill-timed tax cuts and a weakened economy. In fact, the Federal Government has now reached a point at which it could eliminate all nondefense discretionary spending and still not close the Federal budget deficit. That would mean eliminating all Federal spending on roads, schools, law enforcement, disease research, and the environment, among thousands of other programs. This structural imbalance between Federal revenues and outlays threatens to send us into a spiral of increasing debt and rapidly accelerating interest costs. As the Federal debt increases and public saving decreases, long-term interest rates will inevitably be pushed higher. That not only increases the amount that the Federal Government must pay to finance its obligations but also raises the cost of putting a mortgage on your home or financing a new car purchase. A conservative estimate puts the increase in long-term interest rates due to the budget deficit at 0.4 percent. An increase of that magnitude would add $800 per year to the cost of a $200,000 home mortgage, or more than the majority of American taxpayers will receive from the President's latest tax cut. Yet what is perhaps more threatening is the negative economic impact of these growing deficits. The hard truth is that even robust economic growth will not bring the budget back into balance. When preparing deficit projections, the CBO assumes average real GDP growth of 3.3 percent between now and 2008, which is well in excess of the 1.5 to 2 percent average growth of the past 3 years. Such moderately strong growth would still leave us with more than $2 trillion in cumulative deficits over the next decade. And this does take into account the true cost of the tax cuts without the sunsets and other budgetary gimmicks, which is likely to add $1.8 trillion to those deficits if all existing tax cuts were extended. These fiscal problems are not intractable, but they require bipartisan cooperation and real fiscal discipline, both of which have been in short supply of late. One unfortunate consequence of the administration's approach to the recent tax cut has been a growing partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans on fiscal policy. That stands in sharp contrast to the atmosphere when I entered the Senate in 1992. At that time a group of moderate Senators from both parties joined forces to rein in spending and hold the line on new tax cuts. Those efforts came to fruition in 1998, when the first Federal budget surplus since the Johnson administration was recorded. Budget surpluses continued for an additional 2 years, coinciding with a period of robust economic growth. During the 108th Congress, I have worked to rekindle that spirit of bipartisanship because I fear for the consequences of maintaining our current course. This past January, I introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Chafee to freeze further cuts to the top income tax rates, a move which would save over $150 billion over 10 years if enacted today. During debate on the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, I cosponsored an alternate budget resolution with Senators Carper, Chafee, and Lincoln. That alternate resolution would have brought the budget back into balance 4 years earlier than the resolution which passed the Senate, and was revenue-neutral over the 10-year budget window. And yesterday I introduced legislation to upgrade our country's transportation and water infrastructure. Credit for this bill is due to Congressman Oberstar in the House, and I am pleased to introduce the Senate companion bill. This bill would create more than 2 million new jobs, at less than a tenth the cost of the latest tax cut. Moreover, the $34 billion cost of my bill is fully offset by closing Enron-related tax shelters, putting an end to corporate expatriation and extending customs user fees. This type of targeted, revenue-neutral stimulus promises to create more jobs than the President's tax cut, without digging us deeper into debt, and is precisely the sort of fiscally responsible approach to jump-starting the economy that we need. Just as the budget surpluses of the late 1990s had a positive ripple effect of increasing the feeling of economic certainty and security in this country, the current budget deficit is having a negative ripple effect and is contributing to the near-freeze on hiring and capital investment we are currently experiencing. We must break this cycle with bipartisan leadership or we will face an even greater crisis in the years ahead. We cannot afford to burden future generations with the debt resulting from our fiscal mismanagement, and we cannot afford to defer tough choices to future leaders.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the House of Representatives for passing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 and to urge the Senate to take swift action on the House bill to get it to the President's desk. The 418-to-2 House vote to ban all imports from Burma is an important statement to support for human rights, the rule of law, and democracy in Burma. Over 6 weeks have passed since Aung San Suu Kyi and several of her National League for Democracy colleagues came under attack by paramilitary thugs and were subsequently detained by the ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC. Since then, with the exception of a brief visit by the U.N. Special Envoy to Burma, Razali Ismail, Suu Kyi has been held incommunicado reportedly in the notorious Insein Prison. The events of May 30 clearly indicate that the military junta has no intention of adhering to its commitment to engage the NLD in a substantive dialogue on political reform and national reconciliation. Prompt Senate action will put the U.S. Congress firmly on record in support of Suu Kyi's immediate release and the legitimate democratic aspirations of the Burmese people as expressed by the 1990 parliamentary elections, decisively won by the NLD. The only difference in the House bill as opposed to the Senate bill passed last month--a 3-year sunset on the sanctions--is acceptable, if not ideal. Now, I call on the international community, in particular ASEAN and the United Nations, to follow Congress's lead and take action to bring pressure to bear on the SPDC. A united effort is critical for sanctions to be most effective. The regime must know that the world speaks with one voice and its days are numbered. I urge my colleagues to support the House bill so that the President can sign it into law.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Rebuild America Act of 2003,'' a bill to improve our national transportation and water infrastructure and to stimulate economic growth. This bill promises to do what the latest tax cut will not: provide an immediate economic stimulus without increasing the Federal budget deficit. Whereas the President's economic advisors have said that the latest tax cut will create 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2004, at a cost of $350 billion, this bill will create as many as 2 million jobs at a tenth the cost. These jobs could be created in as little as three months, as the bill is specifically designed to fund transportation and water infrastructure projects which are ready to go within 90 days. Not only would those jobs bring some of the 9 million Americans who are unemployed and seeking jobs back into the workforce, it would generate long-term economic benefits from the increased productivity of our transportation infrastructure. This bill will do more to stimulate the economy at less cost than the tax cut because it is directed squarely at our most urgent needs. Unlike the recent tax cut, which largely benefits high income taxpayers who are likely to save any windfall they receive, infrastructure spending is necessarily injected into the economy. According to the Department of Transportation, each $1 billion in new infrastructure investment creates 47,500 new jobs: 26,500 direct jobs for construction workers, engineers, contractors, and other on-site employees, and 21,000 indirect jobs resulting from the spending associated with the investment. These are jobs our economy desperately needs, particularly in the transportation and nonresidential construction sectors, which have been hit hard by the recent downturn. While new home construction has sustained the homebuilding trades, there are now 715,000 unemployed private construction workers, most of whom were laid off due to a downturn in nonresidential building. That represents an 80 percent increase from three years ago. As anyone who has taken a hard look at our transportation needs can attest, federal funding for highways, transit, aviation, high-speed rail, and ports, among other areas, remains inadequate. Without those funds, we are on the verge of falling behind the rest of the developed world in the quality of our infrastructure. I recently visited the port of Hong Kong and was amazed by the automated technology used to process thousands of containers each day with fewer employees than would be required to move an equivalent amount of cargo at even our most advanced ports. And while many countries around the world, including France, China, Germany, and Japan, now have operating MAGLEV train systems, the United States does not have a single demonstration MAGLEV line operating anywhere in the country. Increasingly, global industry demands a level of efficiency and reliability which requires substantial upgrades to existing infrastructure. In California, where computer and electronic products account for 51 percent of the State's manufacturing exports, the trend is toward lighter, higher value shipments. Nationwide, shipments of below 1,000 lbs accounted for 18 percent of total value in 1977, and 32 percent of value in 1997, a dramatic increase. Those changes put a premium on speed and reliability, without which ``just-in-time'' manufacturing and lean inventory controls are impossible. A company such as Hewlett Packard, which uses Intel processors made in California in servers which it assembles in Texas, must be able to ship processors without risk of even a 24-hour delay. This bill takes a big step toward ensuring that level of speed and reliability by dedicating $50 billion to infrastructure upgrades. And I must stress the huge incremental value of that spending in the context of reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, which is expected this year. Reauthorization of TEA-21 will dedicate more than $250 billion toward transportation projects over the next six years, but even that level of funding will only allow us to tread water. Maintenance of existing infrastructure will consume much of that spending. To take one example, the Department of Transportation estimates that $20.6 billion is needed annually to maintain and improve performance of public transit systems alone. The $50 billion provided by the ``Rebuild America Act'' will go beyond current maintenance and actually improve overall productivity by allowing substantial upgrades to go forward. Specifically, the bill provides: $5 billion in additional authority for Federal-aid highway capital investments, drawn from the $19 billion surplus in the Highway Trust Fund. $3 billion in transit capital and operating grants, drawn from the surplus in the Highway Trust Fund. $3 billion in airport development projects, including $2 billion in airport improvement program grants to enhance airport safety, efficiency, and capacity. $14 billion of tax-credit high-speed rail bonds for infrastructure construction and the acquisition of rolling stock. $7.5 billion for capital investment in passenger and freight rail, including $2.5 billion for Amtrak. $2.5 billion for port security grants to ports and marine facility operators. $11.5 billion for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure, to be administered through the existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. $1.5 billion to fund investment in currently authorized water resources infrastructure projects. $1.5 billion in grants to economically distressed communities for economic development. $500 million for the repair and alteration of Federal buildings. In my home State of California, the infrastructure needs that could be addressed by this bill are particularly great. Although the just- completed BART link to San Francisco International Airport is a major achievement, we still remain a long way off from the long-term goal of ringing the Bay Area with BART stations. And despite the recent economic downturn, California's economy remains the engine of much of the country's economic growth, and California's population continues to grow. That puts tremendous demands on our roads, airports, and transit systems, and is one reason why Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area are consistently ranked as the top two urban areas in the U.S. with the longest annual delays per rush-hour driver. This bill will provide a total of $1.8 billion in new funds for California transportation and safe drinking water infrastructure, and more than $1.5 billion more for high speed and passenger and freight rail. All told, the bill will create well over 100,000 new jobs in California. That could bring us farther toward fulfilling one of California's most urgent needs, a high speed rail link from the Bay Area all the way south to San Diego. Without high speed rail there is little hope of taking some of the pressure off of California's over-burdened highways and airports. In addition to the transportation improvements contemplated by the bill, I would like to say a few words about the need for additional funds for port security and clean drinking water. Since the attacks of September 11 it has become clear that our ports should be one of the first lines of defense against attempts to bring weapons of mass destruction into this country. And yet the funds we have dedicated to securing our ports have been woefully inadequate. Last year I introduced comprehensive legislation to improve security at our ports, and to inspect more of the 16 million containers which come through those ports each year. Currently, only one to two percent of those containers are inspected, and the possibility of a dirty bomb or nuclear device being shipped in via container remains alarmingly real. This bill provides an additional $2.5 billion for port security, which would go some of the way toward meeting the $6 billion in expenses the Coast Guard anticipates over the next 10 years for ports to comply with security standards imposed under the Maritime Transportation Security Act. With respect to clean drinking water, a very different, but equally important, priority, this bill provides $11.5 billion for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure investment. That funding is important because the Administration continues to insist on funding cuts for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. Even level funding will not allow us to upgrade existing water treatment facilities, many of which were built in the 1970s, when the federal government first began to take a major role in the construction of drinking water infrastructure. Many of those facilities will require substantial improvements and overhauls over the next two decades as pipes and equipment fall into disrepair. In the West, the magnitude of water supply contamination by perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel, has only recently become apparent. The costs of cleaning up perchlorate in California alone will likely stretch into the billions of dollars, and some of those funds must come from the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which would receive $1.5 billion under this bill. With the Federal budget deficit certain to top $400 billion this year, and with the gross federal debt projected to increase by over $5 trillion by 2013, there is a real question as to where these funds will come from. I am glad to say, therefore, that this bill is fully offset and would not add at all to our deficit. The bill uses three offsets to recoup the $34 billion cost of the bill, two of which are designed to limit corporate fraud, and the last of which extends customs user fees. The bulk of the funds used to offset the bill are generated by limiting the ability of large corporations to shelter income from taxation. A recent report by the Joint Economic Committee on corporate fraud at the Enron Corporation speaks to the magnitude of this problem. For several years Enron reported huge profits to its shareholders, while reporting little or no taxable income to the IRS. We now know that Enron executives treated their tax division as a for-profit entity within the company and set annual revenue targets for the division. Between 1996 and 1999, Enron reported aggregate profits of $2.1 billion on its income statement, while claiming aggregate losses, for tax purposes, of $3 billion. Some of that gap can be explained by the massive tax deductions Enron took for employee stock deductions, and the rest stemmed from the closely guarded tax-shelter transactions designed for the company by banks, accountants, and legal firms. This bill closes those Enron-specific loopholes, but also strengthens a very simple provision which will have a big impact on shutting down future loopholes. The so-called ``Economic Substance Doctrine'' imposed by the bill states that any transaction which has no material economic impact on the business of the company, but which is purely designed for the purpose of tax avoidance, shall be disallowed for tax purposes. That will allow enhance the ability of tax courts to crack down on companies that engage in off balance sheet transactions, artificial income shifting, uneconomic financing transactions, and other tax avoidance schemes which are not designed to provide any profit to the company beyond a tax savings. In the same vein, the bill puts an end to the practice of setting up corporate headquarters offshore in order to avoid corporate taxes at home. This practice is not only blatantly unpatriotic, but also creates an imbalanced playing field for companies that abide by the spirit of the law but are forced to compete with firms that don't. This bill will require such corporate expatriates to continue to pay U.S. taxes even if they move abroad. All told, these provisions fully offset the cost of the infrastructure improvements included in the bill. Just about any American you talk to will tell you that our economy is not in good shape. A quick look at the front page of newspapers shows that our stock markets remain well below their 2000 high, that more people face long-term unemployment than at any time in the past two decades, and that businesses are not making new investments. The tax cut which was recently signed into law is the wrong medicine for our economy, and will do little to reverse our current course. In fact, it may well increase uncertainty and act as a long-term drag on the economy by increasing the federal debt and putting pressure on long-term interest rates. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a much better means of stimulating economic growth, and one which will pay long-term dividends in terms of improved roads, railways, and water treatment facilities. Rather than simply hand down a burden of debt to our children and grand-children, this bill would create a lasting legacy of modern infrastructure for their benefit.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Rebuild America Act of 2003,'' a bill to improve our national transportation and water infrastructure and to stimulate economic growth. This bill promises to do what the latest tax cut will not: provide an immediate economic stimulus without increasing the Federal budget deficit. Whereas the President's economic advisors have said that the latest tax cut will create 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2004, at a cost of $350 billion, this bill will create as many as 2 million jobs at a tenth the cost. These jobs could be created in as little as three months, as the bill is specifically designed to fund transportation and water infrastructure projects which are ready to go within 90 days. Not only would those jobs bring some of the 9 million Americans who are unemployed and seeking jobs back into the workforce, it would generate long-term economic benefits from the increased productivity of our transportation infrastructure. This bill will do more to stimulate the economy at less cost than the tax cut because it is directed squarely at our most urgent needs. Unlike the recent tax cut, which largely benefits high income taxpayers who are likely to save any windfall they receive, infrastructure spending is necessarily injected into the economy. According to the Department of Transportation, each $1 billion in new infrastructure investment creates 47,500 new jobs: 26,500 direct jobs for construction workers, engineers, contractors, and other on-site employees, and 21,000 indirect jobs resulting from the spending associated with the investment. These are jobs our economy desperately needs, particularly in the transportation and nonresidential construction sectors, which have been hit hard by the recent downturn. While new home construction has sustained the homebuilding trades, there are now 715,000 unemployed private construction workers, most of whom were laid off due to a downturn in nonresidential building. That represents an 80 percent increase from three years ago. As anyone who has taken a hard look at our transportation needs can attest, federal funding for highways, transit, aviation, high-speed rail, and ports, among other areas, remains inadequate. Without those funds, we are on the verge of falling behind the rest of the developed world in the quality of our infrastructure. I recently visited the port of Hong Kong and was amazed by the automated technology used to process thousands of containers each day with fewer employees than would be required to move an equivalent amount of cargo at even our most advanced ports. And while many countries around the world, including France, China, Germany, and Japan, now have operating MAGLEV train systems, the United States does not have a single demonstration MAGLEV line operating anywhere in the country. Increasingly, global industry demands a level of efficiency and reliability which requires substantial upgrades to existing infrastructure. In California, where computer and electronic products account for 51 percent of the State's manufacturing exports, the trend is toward lighter, higher value shipments. Nationwide, shipments of below 1,000 lbs accounted for 18 percent of total value in 1977, and 32 percent of value in 1997, a dramatic increase. Those changes put a premium on speed and reliability, without which ``just-in-time'' manufacturing and lean inventory controls are impossible. A company such as Hewlett Packard, which uses Intel processors made in California in servers which it assembles in Texas, must be able to ship processors without risk of even a 24-hour delay. This bill takes a big step toward ensuring that level of speed and reliability by dedicating $50 billion to infrastructure upgrades. And I must stress the huge incremental value of that spending in the context of reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, which is expected this year. Reauthorization of TEA-21 will dedicate more than $250 billion toward transportation projects over the next six years, but even that level of funding will only allow us to tread water. Maintenance of existing infrastructure will consume much of that spending. To take one example, the Department of Transportation estimates that $20.6 billion is needed annually to maintain and improve performance of public transit systems alone. The $50 billion provided by the ``Rebuild America Act'' will go beyond current maintenance and actually improve overall productivity by allowing substantial upgrades to go forward. Specifically, the bill provides: $5 billion in additional authority for Federal-aid highway capital investments, drawn from the $19 billion surplus in the Highway Trust Fund. $3 billion in transit capital and operating grants, drawn from the surplus in the Highway Trust Fund. $3 billion in airport development projects, including $2 billion in airport improvement program grants to enhance airport safety, efficiency, and capacity. $14 billion of tax-credit high-speed rail bonds for infrastructure construction and the acquisition of rolling stock. $7.5 billion for capital investment in passenger and freight rail, including $2.5 billion for Amtrak. $2.5 billion for port security grants to ports and marine facility operators. $11.5 billion for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure, to be administered through the existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. $1.5 billion to fund investment in currently authorized water resources infrastructure projects. $1.5 billion in grants to economically distressed communities for economic development. $500 million for the repair and alteration of Federal buildings. In my home State of California, the infrastructure needs that could be addressed by this bill are particularly great. Although the just- completed BART link to San Francisco International Airport is a major achievement, we still remain a long way off from the long-term goal of ringing the Bay Area with BART stations. And despite the recent economic downturn, California's economy remains the engine of much of the country's economic growth, and California's population continues to grow. That puts tremendous demands on our roads, airports, and transit systems, and is one reason why Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area are consistently ranked as the top two urban areas in the U.S. with the longest annual delays per rush-hour driver. This bill will provide a total of $1.8 billion in new funds for California transportation and safe drinking water infrastructure, and more than $1.5 billion more for high speed and passenger and freight rail. All told, the bill will create well over 100,000 new jobs in California. That could bring us farther toward fulfilling one of California's most urgent needs, a high speed rail link from the Bay Area all the way south to San Diego. Without high speed rail there is little hope of taking some of the pressure off of California's over-burdened highways and airports. In addition to the transportation improvements contemplated by the bill, I would like to say a few words about the need for additional funds for port security and clean drinking water. Since the attacks of September 11 it has become clear that our ports should be one of the first lines of defense against attempts to bring weapons of mass destruction into this country. And yet the funds we have dedicated to securing our ports have been woefully inadequate. Last year I introduced comprehensive legislation to improve security at our ports, and to inspect more of the 16 million containers which come through those ports each year. Currently, only one to two percent of those containers are inspected, and the possibility of a dirty bomb or nuclear device being shipped in via container remains alarmingly real. This bill provides an additional $2.5 billion for port security, which would go some of the way toward meeting the $6 billion in expenses the Coast Guard anticipates over the next 10 years for ports to comply with security standards imposed under the Maritime Transportation Security Act. With respect to clean drinking water, a very different, but equally important, priority, this bill provides $11.5 billion for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure investment. That funding is important because the Administration continues to insist on funding cuts for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. Even level funding will not allow us to upgrade existing water treatment facilities, many of which were built in the 1970s, when the federal government first began to take a major role in the construction of drinking water infrastructure. Many of those facilities will require substantial improvements and overhauls over the next two decades as pipes and equipment fall into disrepair. In the West, the magnitude of water supply contamination by perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel, has only recently become apparent. The costs of cleaning up perchlorate in California alone will likely stretch into the billions of dollars, and some of those funds must come from the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which would receive $1.5 billion under this bill. With the Federal budget deficit certain to top $400 billion this year, and with the gross federal debt projected to increase by over $5 trillion by 2013, there is a real question as to where these funds will come from. I am glad to say, therefore, that this bill is fully offset and would not add at all to our deficit. The bill uses three offsets to recoup the $34 billion cost of the bill, two of which are designed to limit corporate fraud, and the last of which extends customs user fees. The bulk of the funds used to offset the bill are generated by limiting the ability of large corporations to shelter income from taxation. A recent report by the Joint Economic Committee on corporate fraud at the Enron Corporation speaks to the magnitude of this problem. For several years Enron reported huge profits to its shareholders, while reporting little or no taxable income to the IRS. We now know that Enron executives treated their tax division as a for-profit entity within the company and set annual revenue targets for the division. Between 1996 and 1999, Enron reported aggregate profits of $2.1 billion on its income statement, while claiming aggregate losses, for tax purposes, of $3 billion. Some of that gap can be explained by the massive tax deductions Enron took for employee stock deductions, and the rest stemmed from the closely guarded tax-shelter transactions designed for the company by banks, accountants, and legal firms. This bill closes those Enron-specific loopholes, but also strengthens a very simple provision which will have a big impact on shutting down future loopholes. The so-called ``Economic Substance Doctrine'' imposed by the bill states that any transaction which has no material economic impact on the business of the company, but which is purely designed for the purpose of tax avoidance, shall be disallowed for tax purposes. That will allow enhance the ability of tax courts to crack down on companies that engage in off balance sheet transactions, artificial income shifting, uneconomic financing transactions, and other tax avoidance schemes which are not designed to provide any profit to the company beyond a tax savings. In the same vein, the bill puts an end to the practice of setting up corporate headquarters offshore in order to avoid corporate taxes at home. This practice is not only blatantly unpatriotic, but also creates an imbalanced playing field for companies that abide by the spirit of the law but are forced to compete with firms that don't. This bill will require such corporate expatriates to continue to pay U.S. taxes even if they move abroad. All told, these provisions fully offset the cost of the infrastructure improvements included in the bill. Just about any American you talk to will tell you that our economy is not in good shape. A quick look at the front page of newspapers shows that our stock markets remain well below their 2000 high, that more people face long-term unemployment than at any time in the past two decades, and that businesses are not making new investments. The tax cut which was recently signed into law is the wrong medicine for our economy, and will do little to reverse our current course. In fact, it may well increase uncertainty and act as a long-term drag on the economy by increasing the federal debt and putting pressure on long-term interest rates. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a much better means of stimulating economic growth, and one which will pay long-term dividends in terms of improved roads, railways, and water treatment facilities. Rather than simply hand down a burden of debt to our children and grand-children, this bill would create a lasting legacy of modern infrastructure for their benefit.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Millennium Challenge Account and the importance of providing full funding for foreign assistance initiatives. I had intended to offer an amendment to the State Department authorization bill to authorize an additional $300 million to the Millennium Challenge Account, MCA, to match the President's request of $1.3 billion for fiscal year 2004. I believe it is critical for the United States to provide full funding for the MCA at its inception to demonstrate our commitment to those in the developing world who seek a better life and our fellow citizens at home who deserve a safe and secure future free from terror. Nevertheless, I understand Senator Lugar has worked closely with Senator Biden on a bipartisan bill and that an amendment to increase funding for the MCA is not appropriate at this time. I will not offer an amendment, but I want to take this time to emphasize the need for the United States to take a leadership role in combating global poverty and provide the necessary resources to do so. Let us not forget that 1.2 billion people live on less than $1 a day and nearly 3 billion live on less than $2 a day; 1.2 billion people lack access to safe drinking water, 2.9 billion have inadequate access to sanitation, and 1 billion people in developing nations are unemployed or underemployed. In March, 2002, the President announced an initiative to increase foreign aid by $5 billion over the next 3 years through the creation of the Millennium Challenge Account. These funds would be available on a competitive basis to a few countries based on their records in three areas; ruling justly, investing in people, and pursuing sound economic policies. Over the past few years, I and several of my colleagues have worked hard to raise awareness about the importance of a robust international affairs budget as a central component of advancing the U.S. foreign policy agenda and protecting our national security interests. We simply can not afford to rely on our military might alone to fight terror and provide safety and security for our citizens. The fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization bill passed by the Senate authorized $400.5 billion for national defense. Over the past 10 years, the Defense appropriations bill has risen from $261 billion in fiscal year 1994, to $355 billion in fiscal year 2003, to $400 billion this year. Given the multitude of threats our country faces and the commitments of our troops all around the world, I fully support giving the men and women of our Armed Forces the tools they need to do their job at the highest level. On the other hand, in fiscal year 1994, the foreign operations appropriations bill totaled $17.9 billion falling to $16.3 billion in fiscal year 2003. This authorization provides for $15.3 billion for foreign operations for fiscal year 2004 and $1 billion for the MCA. The United States spends less than 1 percent of our budget on foreign aid which is barely 0.1 percent of GDP. Thus, I applauded President Bush's initiative to begin to restore the foreign aid budget to the high water mark of the cold war years and increase foreign assistance spending by $5 billion over the next 3 years. The fiscal year 2004 budget resolution passed out of the Budget Committee, however, cut $1.1 billion--including $1 billion to the MCA-- from the President's request for the International Function 150 Account. So, Senator Lugar and I introduced, and the Senate passed, an amendment to restore those funds. National security is not just about ensuring we have the most advanced weapons and the best trained personnel. We must make the same commitment to our international affairs budget and use all the tools at our disposal to prevent terror and avoid more costly military interventions in the future. I, for one, believe that we should provide additional resources beyond the President's request; $5 billion over 3 years is a good start but, in my view, not near enough. But I felt we should at least match what the President himself has requested for his own initiative in its first year of existence. Now is not the time to take steps backwards or shy away from larger commitment. In addition, we should provide full funding for our existing foreign aid programs which have been proven to reduce poverty and increase economic development. Many countries will fall outside the bounds of the MCA, and we can not afford to leave them behind. I believe the MCA and our overall international affairs budget will help us attack the conditions that foster terrorism in the developing world: poverty, hunger, illiteracy, and illness. Terrorists prey on the hopelessness, anger, fear, and alienation of the poor and provide an easy way out of the misery of the developing world. The MCA and the international affairs budget, by providing education, health care, shelter, and food, will help promote tolerance, understanding, and political stability. We send the wrong message when we devote billions of dollars for national defense but fail to provide the resources for a new, significant foreign assistance initiative. We must demonstrate to the world that the United States is serious about reducing global poverty through a robust and substantive foreign aid budget. I urge my colleagues to join with me in making full funding for all of our foreign assistance initiatives a priority.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my chairman, Senator Hutchison, in recommending the 2004 military construction bill to the Senate. This has been a very challenging year. The President's budget request for military construction was $1.5 billion below last year's enacted level, a nearly 15 percent reduction in a program that is chronically underfunded. And this year, because of across-the-board constraints on appropriation allocations, we had little room to maneuver beyond the ceiling imposed by the President's budget submission. The bill that we bring to the Senate provides $9.2 billion for military construction and family housing programs for fiscal year 2004. Within that allocation, we had to shoehorn funding for a large number of critical programs and projects that were not adequately funded in the President's budget request. In addition to tight budget constraints, we were faced with another challenge this year in determining how to deal with overseas military construction programs at a time when the Defense Department is proposing what has been described as the most sweeping change in America's military presence overseas since World War II. The President's budget request included more than $1 billion for overseas military construction. Less than 3 months after the budget was submitted, the Defense Department unveiled preliminary plans for a major restructuring of forces in Europe and Korea, and sent Congress a budget amendment to rescind or delete more than half a billion dollars in overseas military construction programs from fiscal year 2003 and the Fiscal Year 2004 request. It became clear to Senator Hutchison and me that the Department was far from finalizing its global realignment plans, and indeed, we continue to read almost daily about different proposals for moving U.S. forces here and there overseas. For this reason, we are recommending a pause in funding a number of proposed construction projects in Europe and Korea until the Defense Department completes its overseas basing review and presents a comprehensive plan to Congress. The overseas basing commission that Senator Hutchison and I are proposing in this bill will provide another important layer of oversight to this process. In Europe, central questions include how many troops will remain permanently stationed there, what basing structure will be needed to support them, and where and what type of forward operating bases and forward operating locations will be needed to support rotational and transitory forces. In Korea, the issue of where the forces will be realigned has apparently been settled--the U.S. is planning to withdraw troops from Seoul and the Demilitarized Zone and move them to south central South Korea. However, the details of that realignment have yet to be presented to Congress, nor has the Korean government provided the land needed for the realignment. I am aware that the administration would prefer to bank all of the proposed funding for the realignment of forces in Korea to keep pressure on the South Korean government to transfer the required land to the U.S. military. However, I believe that withholding this funding until the U.S. has actually secured the land is an equally effective incentive for the Korean government if, in fact, it is serious about wanting United States military forces to move out of Seoul. Moreover, in a year when the administration has slashed the military construction budget by nearly 15 percent, it is unrealistic for the Defense Department to turn around and ask Congress to wager hundreds of millions of dollars that are urgently needed elsewhere on the Korean Government's uncertain timetable. We have given this matter a great deal of consideration, and I commend Senator Hutchison for laying out the position of the subcommittee so clearly and completely in the report accompanying our bill. This explanation should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the Military Construction Subcommittee understands the importance of maintaining strong military ties to our allies overseas and supports the Defense Department's efforts to ensure that our overseas basing structure reflects the international realities of the post-cold-war environment. We look forward to helping implement the construction elements of the new overseas basing structure once the Defense Department completes its review. There is another item in the Military Construction bill that is extremely important to me, and that is the environmental clean up of military installations. The fiscal year 2004 bill includes just $370 million for Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, environmental cleanup. This is a significant drop from last year's funding, and it is a level of funding that I accept only reluctantly, and only because the Defense Department is embarking on a new and ambitious program to raise revenue for environmental cleanup at BRAC sites through land sales. The Navy's BRAC budget, for example, includes $68 million above the appropriated amount in anticipated revenue from land sales, and the Navy anticipates that additional land sales revenue could significantly increase the amount of money available in fiscal year 2004 for environmental cleanup. I believe that the Defense Department has the responsibility to complete, to the maximum extent possible, the cleanup of military installations closed or realigned through previous BRAC rounds before embarking on a new BRAC round in 2005. I am hopeful that self-financing through land sales will be sufficient to supplement appropriated amounts, but I intend to keep a close watch on this program to ensure that we do not sacrifice momentum by relying too heavily on land sale revenue. Madam President, I also want to comment on an issue that I have been fighting since this last winter. It is the problem of perchlorate contamination in our country's drinking water. This topic is relevant to the Department of Defense and Military Construction Appropriations as Defense, along with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, uses 90 percent of the perchlorate produced in the United States. Perchlorate, a chemical used in solid rocket propellant, explosives and munitions has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an unregulated toxin. No national standard exists for perchlorate. Perchlorate contamination has been found in drinking water supplies in 29 States, including Arizona, California, Texas, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, and New Mexico. More than 300 groundwater wells in California alone are contaminated with perchlorate, as is the Colorado River, which supplies drinking water to more than 15 million people in the Southwest. I am alarmed about the potential impact of perchlorate contamination at installations that have been closed through the BRAC process as well as at active and inactive Defense sites or where perchlorate has migrated off of current and former Defense or contractor properties to threaten public water supplies. I am also very disappointed that the Department of Defense has been unresponsive to requests to take a positive leadership role in addressing the concerns of the public and the immediate needs of water agencies large and small as perchlorate is detected in more and more locations. It is also distressing that the Department is resisting the obvious need to test for the presence of perchlorate at BRAC properties or other Defense sites. The Department of Defense has a moral obligation to the public to address the problem now as the water agencies that have to close wells, or treat their water supplies, are faced with a real problem today. This problem is a result of the activities of the Department or its contractors. The language I worked to include in the Military Construction Subcommittee report moves the Department of Defense toward addressing the perchlorate problem. This language directs the Department to submit to the Congressional Defense Appropriation Committees the following: A report on the activities of the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee and the activities of the Department on perchlorate as described in the Memo of January 24, 2001 from the Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security to the Secretaries of the military departments and the Defense Logistics Agency. Identification of sources of perchlorate contamination at BRAC properties and to develop a plan to remediate perchlorate contamination on BRAC sites that can be implemented rapidly once state or Federal perchlorate standards are set. Finally, I want to address an issue covered in the report where I believe the report language was not wholly accurate, and which I intend to attempt to clarify in conference. The existing language says, ``The Committee recognizes that, absent a state or Federal standard for perchlorate, the Department of Defense is under no obligation to remediate perchlorate contamination at defense sites.'' It is more accurate to say that absent a State or Federal standard for perchlorate, there is uncertainty as to the level of perchlorate cleanup that would be required at each site, but there still is a legal obligation to remediate perchlorate contamination under Federal and State statutes including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and California's Carpenter- Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act. Remediation would then proceed on the basis of a site-specific risk assessment or other criteria such as an Applicable, Relevant and Appropriate Requirement. Madam President, as I stated earlier, this has been a challenging year. Senator Hutchison and I were faced with a difficult set of circumstances and a series of hard choices. We were able to develop a military construction program that comes within the constraints of the budget resolution, but I hope that the administration understands the importance of infrastructure as a key element of readiness and quality of life, and will present Congress with a more realistic budget request next year. I thank the members of my Appropriations Committee staff, Christina Evans, and B.G. Wright, and to Chris Thompson of my personal staff for their hard work on this bill. Also, I wish to express my appreciation to Dennis Ward, of Senator Hutchison's staff for his cooperative and bipartisan effort throughout this process.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there are now as many as 415,000 acres of dead and dying trees on the San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests and surrounding private lands as the result of drought, decades of fire suppression, and a bark beetle infestation. Jack Blackwell, the Regional Forester for California, has described this situation as an unprecedented threat to public safety. There are large mountaintop communities with over 90,000 people total, communities that are completely surrounded by thousands and thousands of deed trees. In addition, the only escape routes are narrow winding mountain roads which are themselves surrounded by dead and dying trees. The result is that thousands of lives are at risk. There is some good news, in that San Bernardino National Forest and California Department of Forestry staff agree on the four highest priority tasks to reduce the threat to public safety. First, they want to clear evacuation routes from the mountain communities. This involves clearing a corridor on either side of major escape roads so people can escape from their communities without being blocked by fallen trees, or the radiant heat of the fire. Second, they want to clear trees around safety zones like elementary schools and camps. This gives people a place to go if they can't get out of the community. Next they want to clear brush around communication sites in the forest to communicate with the public and emergency responders. Finally, they want to clear buffer zones around populous communities, protecting thousands of lives.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, on Wednesday, June 25, Granite Bay Student Kevin Kiley visited my office as part of the U.S. Institute of Peace's 2003 National Peace Essay Contest, NPEC, Awards Week in Washington. Mr. Kiley had been selected by the Institute as the California State winner as well as the national award winner for his essay, ``Kuwait and Kosovo: The Harm Principle and Humanitarian War.'' The U.S. Institute of Peace has sponsored the essay contest annually since 1986 in the belief that expanding the study of peace, justice, freedom, and security is vital to civic education. I am proud of Mr. Kiley's exemplary essay, commend his dedication to this studies, and congratulate his teachers at Granite Bay High School. This young man, who is thoughtful and mature beyond his years, will be a leader in his future endeavors in peace studies. I would like to bring to my colleaguess' attention a copy of Mr. Kiley's first place essay. I ask that it be printed in the Record. The essay follows. Kuwait and Kosovo: The Harm Principle and Humanitarian War War causes harm; of this there is no doubt. In determining the justification of war, the question hence becomes: when is it justified to cause harm? The only morally acceptable answer is that causing harm is justified if it prevents further harm. Thus, in general terms, the only justifiable reason to go to war is to minimize harm--if war is the lesser of two evils. Underlying the issue of just and unjust war is the concept of sovereignty, for declaring war on a nation is a direct violation of its right to self-government. This adds another element to the harms calculation involved in justifying war. Even the United Nations accepts the view that sovereignty has inherent value, stating in a 1970 Declaration, ``Every state has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social, and cultural system, without interference in any form by another state.'' Waging war against a sovereign nation constitutes a direct violation of this ``inalienable right.'' In determining what circumstances justify violating a nation's sovereignty, the laws governing the conduct of individuals provide a useful analogy. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill establishes the Harm Principle, a criterion for when it is justified to violate an individual's sovereignty. Mill writes, ``the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.'' Mill's aphorism can be taken a step further; it applies with equal force to sovereign nations. Just as an individual's freedom must be restricted if it harms other individuals, so too must a nation's freedom be restricted if it harms other nations. This principle, however, does not simply govern the relationship between two warring nations, for today's complex world is one of political interdependence. With the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the United Nations, the Arab League, and other alliances, even those wars that are relatively limited in scope are becoming ``world wars.'' Therefore, in applying the Harm Principal to the realm of nation states, any just war standard must specify what circumstances justify intervention by an international coalition. International intervention in Kuwait and Kosovo illustrate the success and failure of meeting just war criteria. In 1990, Iraq sent shockwaves around the world by invading Kuwait, its small but wealthy neighbor. Within twelve hours of the invasion, ``all of Kuwait . . . was under Iraqi control.'' Following Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's overwhelming victory, the resolve of U.S. President George Bush quickly became apparent; he immediately declared that the invasion ``will not stand,'' that ``no nation should rape, pillage, and brutalize its neighbor.'' In the five months between Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the dropping of the first U.S. bomb, Bush tried to convince the American people, along with the international community, that intervention was a moral responsibility. At the time of the invasion, the depth of Hussein's motives was unclear. Was he a power-hungry despot--another Hitler--or was he simply trying to claim the territory he felt was rightfully his? Would he stop with Kuwait, or did he have his sights set on hegemony in the Middle East? While Hussein's territorial ambitions remained uncertain, there were more tangible consequences of appeasing Iraq's territorial gains. Western oil interests in the region--and the fate of these interests if Hussein were to gain control of OPEC--were undoubtedly a weight on the scale. Moreover, beyond these utilitarian considerations, the fact remained that Kuwait's sovereignty had been violated, and according to the Harm Principal, a military response was justified on this basis alone. When the war was over, the stated objectives of the United States and its allies had been achieved: ``Kuwait was liberated, Saudi sovereignty assured, Persian Gulf oil secure.'' Given these results, the ejection of Iraq from Kuwait was a just end, but a just end is only half of the just war equation. For a war to be justified, the benefits must outweigh the costs--the harm of action must be less than the harm of inaction. Whether this was possible in the Persian Gulf was a matter of much speculation. As with any war, the loss of American lives was a foremost concern. This concern led some--including General Collin Powell--to suggest that economic sanctions might be a viable alternative to war. In late 1990, however, it became increasingly clear that sanctions would do little more than starve the Iraqi people. According to a PBS Frontline report, ``the CIA was telling President Bush it could take years for sanctions to drive Saddam from Kuwait.'' Furthermore, it also became clear that U.S. technology could enable the U.S. to fight a relatively painless war, one with few U.S. lives lost and minimal civilian casualties. And this optimistic outlook became a reality, as the U.S. and its allies waged one of the most flawless military campaigns in history. Thus, the Gulf War meets the criteria of a just war: It achieved a just end and minimized harms. While the involvement of the United States in the Gulf War demonstrates the validity of Mill's Harm Principle as a justification for war, a key distinction must be made between the Principle's applicability on an individual level and on a national level. The constituent parts of an individual have no inherent worth; it is only the individual himself that is of value. Nations, conversely, are comprised of individuals. Thus, the constituent parts of the nation are themselves valuable. While Mill holds that morality demands the individual be completely sovereign in his sphere--that no just law could prevent him from harming himself--this is not the case with nation states. For if the actions of a government cause harm to its citizens, the sovereignty of the nation and the sovereignty of the individuals conflict. And on this basis, a case can be made for humanitarian war-- military intervention that prevents a nation from harming its citizens, its constituent parts. In the last decade, the most vivid example of humanitarian intervention was the crisis in Kosovo, a ``paradigmatic instance of humanitarian intervention in the very name of humanity itself.'' There was little doubt, in 1999, that Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansing of Albanians constituted a crime against humanity. While Milosevic's actions did not directly harm another sovereign nation, they so egregiously harmed his own people--so ``shocked the conscience of mankind''--that international action was deemed necessary. The end of saving Albanian lives was certainly justified. In fact, the moral responsibility espoused by U.S. President Bill Clinton was perhaps even greater than that Bush spoke of in 1990. And aside from war, there existed no viable option for fulfilling this responsibility. The means employed by the Clinton Administration and NATO, however, were inconsistent with just war principles. The history of the Kosovo crisis is replete with ``collateral damage'' to civilians. According to Jean Elshtain, ``once we had exhausted the obvious military targets, we degraded the infrastructure on which civilian life depends.'' Largely as a result of high altitude bombing by NATO forces, 2,000 civilians were killed and 6,00 wounded, and countless others would suffer and die because of infrastructure destruction. This ``collateral damage'' can be directly attributed to the ``no-cost'' strategy employed by NATO troops, which refused to risk American and European lives even as the welfare of the Serbian people hung in the balance. In the end, this overemphasis on some lives and devaluation of others undermined the moral authority of NATO's crusade. In ``War and Sacrifice in Kosovo,'' Paul W. Kahn sums up this contradiction well when he writes of the ``incompatibility between the morality of the ends, which are universal, and the morality of the means, which seem to privilege a particular community.'' The incompatibility Kahn speaks of not only caused unnecessary civilian causalties, but also expedited the very atrocities NATO forces had entered Kosovo to prevent. According to Elshtain, NATO attacked Milosevic to halt ethnic cleansing, but ``our means speeded up the process, as the opening sorties in the bombing campaign gave Milosveic the excuse he needed to declare marital law and move rapidly in order to complete what he had already begun.'' As a tragic consequence, an estimated 20,000 Kosovo Albanians were murdered by Serbs in the first eleven weeks of bombing, compared with some 2,500 people that had died before the bombing campaign. Thus, the just end NATO entered Kosovo to achieve was not merely tainted, but completely undercut by unjust means. The United States' crusade to liberate Kuwait, along with NATO's effort to free the Albanians from the torturous grip of Milosevic, demonstrate two separate, but equally justifiable criteria for waging war. In the case of Kuwait, the Harm Principal criterion was met, as one sovereign nation had harmed another, and a successful war minimized costs. But in the case of Kosovo, a righteous cause was rendered unjust by immoral means. The conflicts in Kuwait and Kosovo demonstrate two situations in which sovereignty can be justifiably violated and illustrate the necessity of just means in waging war.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Boxer's amendment to the State Department authorization bill to eliminate the so-called global gag rule to lift the restrictions for U.S. assistance to international family planning providers included in this legislation. There have been few issues in recent years that have been more debated. I have come to the floor on several occasions in years past to express my deep concern for the global gag rule. Year after year, we have come to the floor to try to overturn the rule. Under the leadership of both Democratic and Republican Presidents, and under Congresses controlled by Democrats and Republicans alike, the United States has established a long and distinguished record of world leadership in the area of international family planning and reproductive health issues. But the global gag rule places very limiting restrictions on U.S. assistance to international family planning organizations. Overseas family planning providers would be barred from using their own money to even provide information to patients about the availability of a legal abortion if these providers receive any funding or even access to contraceptives from the U.S. Government. International family planning providers are being faced with a very difficult choice; either give up desperately needed U.S. funding or edit the information about reproductive health that providers share with the women they are trying to help. Either choice will hurt some of the poorest women in the world. Family planning providers don't just lose funds under the global gag rule. They also lose donated contraceptives. The United States is the most important donor of contraceptives to the developing world, providing about 37 percent of all donations at a value of $45 to $55 million annually. I was disappointed that one of President Bush's first major policy actions, on his first business day in office, January 22, 2001, was to reinstate the global gag rule. I think it is important to point out that Senator Boxer's amendment does not change any laws about abortion. In fact, this amendment only allows for funding to organizations that provide services that are legal in their own country and also legal in the United States. Beginning with the reinstatement of the gag policy in January 2001, several organizations working in the developing world that have lost access to much needed funding or contraceptives, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation, IPPF. IPPF is made up of more than 150 agencies working in 180 countries and is the largest provider of reproductive health services in the world. Between 2001 and 2003, this organization has lost more than $8 million in U.S. Government funds--mostly for contraceptive supplies. Some country-specific examples to demonstrate the impact of the global gag rue include: Ethiopia where the Family Planning Association lost $56,000 in contraceptive supplies; Zambia were the Planned Parenthood Association lost $137,092 in contraceptive supplies; Cote d'Ivoire where the Family Planning Association lost $186,000 in contraceptive supplies which eliminated contraceptive services from nearly 50 percent of their 92 distribution points; Congo where the Family Planning Association lost $17,000 in U.S. assistance and, as a result, they had to eliminate programs that served 15,739 clients; and Kenya where the Family Planning Association had received an average of $580,000 per year to fund its clinics. Three urban clinics serving 56,000 poor and underserved clients closed. The amount of funding lost may not sound like much to you. But in the developing world, every dollar, literally, counts. And every woman deprived of access to education or contraceptive supplies risk an unwanted pregnancy. Access to contraceptives is not only about family planning. It is about reproductive health. And it is also about protecting people from HIV/AIDS. Much of the developing world is struggling with HIV/AIDS. The loss of U.S. funds has reduced the capacity of many family planning providers to also address the HIV/AIDS crisis. In Ghana, for example, 697,000 Planned Parenthood Association clients will lose access to not only family planning services but also to voluntary testing and counseling for HIV/AIDS as well as AIDS prevention education programs. With the world population now at more than 6 billion, and estimates of this figure growing to 12 billion by 2050, we must give couples and women the resources necessary to plan the number and spacing of their children. The vast majority of this population growth will occur in the developing world, in countries that don't have the resources necessary or the infrastructure to provide for basic health care. Limited access to family planning services results in high rates of unintended and high-risk pregnancy and maternal deaths. Every minute around the world, 190 women face an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. About 110 women experience pregnancy-related complications and 1 woman dies. This can be avoided. I would ask the women of America, as they consider their own reproductive rights, to consider the aim and intent of a policy in which the reproductive rights of American women are approached one way and those of women in the developing world another. Perhaps worst of all about the global gag rule is that it is a cynical ploy by those who would challenge domestic reproductive rights but are too fearful of the political repercussions. So, instead, they practice the divisive politics of reproductive rights on the poor, sacrificing the lives of women and children overseas, where they think we are not paying attention or do not really care. I truly believe that the only way to help women in the developing word better their own lives and the lives of their families is to ensure that they have access to the educational and medical resources necessary to make informed decisions. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wanted to use 12 minutes of the Senate's time to discuss my reaction to this bill and my general thinking about the subject of medical malpractice insurance premiums. I think it is pretty clear that medicine is at a crossroads. I think it is pretty clear that something has to be done. My own State of California was at the crossroads 28 years ago. A bill was passed through the legislature called the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, known as MICRA. MICRA had a rough road initially. It had a number of court challenges. Finally, it was sustained by the California Supreme Court. What we saw--I will go into this in more detail later on--was that premium costs began to settle down. In fact, I think it is fair to say that the California medical profession is very pleased with the MICRA bill as it stands today. The problem I have--and I am probably one of the few on my side of the aisle who is not opposed to the issue of caps because I think in this situation they are helpful, but my problem is with the bill that is before us today because that bill is nearly identical to the bill passed out of the House and, frankly speaking, it is not one that I can support. This bill before us sets a $250,000 cap for noneconomic damages in medical malpractice suits. Now, this can be applied not only to suits against doctors but to suits against HMOs, nursing homes, and medical product manufacturers. It is a very broad provision. This cap would even apply for extraordinary cases. I will give you one: A youngster, Jessica Santillan, a 17-year-old who died after doctors mistakenly transplanted the wrong kidneys into her body. So under this bill, suits against drug and device manufacturers also, such as the makers of the weight loss drug Phen-Fen, the Dalkon shield contraceptive device, faulty heart valves, and other products that have caused innocent deaths, would be limited to $250,000 in noneconomic damages. I find that unacceptable. Secondly, this legislation would severely limit the availability of punitive damages not only for doctors but also for manufacturers. In general, punitive damages are capped at the greater of $250,000 or twice economic damages in this bill. But the bill also wipes out any punitive damages in several different types of lawsuits against medical product manufacturers. It would immunize the manufacturer or seller of drugs from punitive damages for any packaging or labeling defect on their product. So, presumably, if a drug package label had mistakenly directed a patient to take 10 pills a day instead of 1 pill a day, a patient could not sue for punitive damages, regardless of the harm caused or the basis of the mistaken direction. It would also limit the availability of punitive damages against any manufacturer or distributor of medical products if the product complied with FDA regulations. Let me give you an example: a product such as the Bjork-Shiley artificial heart valve. It originally received FDA approval, but these valves broke in an estimated 619 patients and led to hundreds of deaths. Under this bill, they would be immune from any punitive damage case. I think that is wrong. This FDA exemption, in a sense, sets a downward and unacceptable course. If a company has an FDA-approved product on the market and then learns of a dangerous complication presented by that product or a failure of that product, it should have the incentive to remove that product from the marketplace as soon as possible. I think to provide an exemption if the product has FDA approval creates a disincentive to the rapid removal of that product from the shelf. So while I cannot support this proposal, there are, however, proposals which I could support because I do believe that rising premiums are creating a crisis all across this country in terms of access to care. Others have placed before this body a number of situations. Let me just repeat a few. Obstetricians and gynecologists in Florida pay over $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance as opposed to $57,000 a year in California. And there is no more high-cost State than California. So OB/GYN premiums in Florida, $200,000; in California, because of MICRA, $57,000; surgeons in Michigan pay $110,000 for malpractice insurance. Twenty percent of the OBs and GYNs in West Virginia and Georgia have been forced out of their practice due to rising premiums. Nine hundred doctors in Pennsylvania have left the State since 2001 to avoid annual premiums as high as $200,000. The Methodist Hospital in Philadelphia discontinued its prenatal program for low-income women because of high premium costs. The neurosurgeons of Wheeling, WV, have left the area, and local trauma patients requiring neurosurgery need to be airlifted out of the State. Not only are insurance premiums skyrocketing in some States, but insurers are leaving the market, and that is a very dangerous signal. There were 14 companies underwriting liability in Mississippi; today, there is but one willing to write new policies. Texas had 17 insurance carriers; today it has 4. In California, we have nonprofits handling the insurance for California's doctors, and that is one reason the system works. I have spent a number of months taking a good look at the California law to see what could be transferred to the national level. And I want to say, here and now, this Senator would support reasonable caps on noneconomic damages because I deeply believe they can lead to more stable premium rates. At the time MICRA was enacted in 1975, the cost of health insurance in California was higher than any other market except New York City. In the 6 years before 1975, the number of malpractice suits filed per 100 physicians in California more than doubled. MICRA has kept costs down. In 1975, California's doctors paid 20 percent of the gross costs of all malpractice insurance premiums in the country. Today, they pay 11 percent of the Nation's total malpractice insurance premiums. Clearly, costs have dropped in comparison with other States. All over the United States, premiums have grown 505 percent in the past 25 years. California's premiums have grown 167 percent. In other words, premiums have grown three times slower in California than in other States. That alone shows that MICRA is working, regardless of what anyone might say. Also, because of MICRA, patients get their money 23 percent faster than in States without caps on noneconomic damages. Bottom line: California's malpractice premiums today are one-third to one-half lower, on average, than those in Florida or New York. Because the California law has proven successful at keeping premiums down--and I know there are those who do not want to believe it; they will say it is some other reason; but I believe it has--I used the law as a departure point for crafting a proposal which I believe is both just and fair and which I believe should stabilize and, over time, reduce premium costs. I very much appreciate the efforts of Senator Frist and Senator McConnell in working with me to explore this option. I am not going to offer it on the floor today for one reason: Unfortunately, it would not have the necessary votes. Specifically, my proposal would do the following: It would create a schedule for attorney's fees. It would create a strict statute of limitations, requiring that medical negligence claims be brought within 1 year from the discovery of an injury or within 3 years of the injury's occurrence. It would require a claimant to give a defendant 90 days' notice of his or her intent to file a lawsuit before a claim could actually be filed. It would allow defendants to pay damage awards in periodic installments. It would allow defendants to introduce evidence at trial to show that claimants have already been compensated for their injuries through workers compensation benefits, disability benefits, health insurance, or other payments--that is only fair--and it would permit the recovery of unlimited economic damages. My proposal would differ from California's law in two key areas: One, noneconomic damages and, two, punitive damages. The California MICRA law has a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages. In contrast, I would propose a $500,000 general cap on noneconomic damages. Today 15 States have caps of $500,000 or less for noneconomic damages. Twelve States have a cap of $500,000 or less on noneconomic damages, and that includes Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Hawaii, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Three States have caps of $250,000-or-less and they include Montana, New Hampshire, and California. Thus, 15 States already have caps of $500,000 or lower. In catastrophic cases, where a victim of malpractice was subject to severe disfigurement, severe disability, or death--in other words, a catastrophic exemption--the cap would be the greater of $2 million or 50,000 times the number of years of the life expectancy of the victim. This really takes into consideration terrible morbidity done to a young child whose life span might be 50 or 60 years more. Clearly, a cap of $250,000 or $500,000 is really not fair to that youngster. Therefore, the catastrophic exemption we would propose would provide the greater of $2 million or 50,000 times the number of years of life expectancy of the victim. In addition, we would propose a less onerous punitive damages standard than California law. California law is very strict today with respect to a plaintiff's ability to prove punitives under the very high standard of fraud, oppression, or malice. In other words, if you can't prove fraud, oppression, or malice, you can't prove punitive damages. If a doctor is in the middle of surgery and walks out to go to his bank to make a deposit while the patient is under a general anesthetic, in my view, that doctor should have punitive damages brought against him because that clearly is not accepted medical procedure. California's law is much stricter. You have to prove fraud, oppression, or malice. Under this law, I am not aware of a single case where a plaintiff has obtained punitive damages in California over the past 10 years. So at least in my view, for situations such as the one I just indicated, the California law is too strict in this regard. Instead we would offer a four-part test where a plaintiff would have to show by clear and convincing evidence--and this was put together based on measures that have passed this Senate in the not too distant past--that the defendant, one, intended to injure the claimant unrelated to the provision of health care; or two, understood that the claimant was substantially certain to suffer unnecessary injury and, in providing or failing to provide health care services, the defendant deliberately failed to avoid such injury; three, the defendant acted with a conscious flagrant disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of unnecessary injury which the defendant failed to avoid; or four, the defendant acted with a conscious flagrant disregard of acceptable medical practice in such circumstances. Clearly, the doctor who walked out of a surgery and left a patient under a general anesthetic would fall under this fourth plank. It certainly is a flagrant disregard of acceptable medical practice which would be, you don't go to your bank in the middle of an operation to make a deposit when the patient is under a general anesthetic. I firmly believe a variant of this type could lead to a compromise in the proposal in the Senate. Why didn't I go ahead with it? Much to my chagrin and, I think, surprise, both the American Medical Association and the California Medical Association rejected this proposal. The AMA contends that despite the fact 15 States have caps of $500,000 or less, they believe that a $500,000 cap is too high and it would not stabilize premiums. The California Medical Association is opposed to it for a different reason. Although we leave State law in place, whether that State law is retroactively passed or prospectively passed, the CMA felt the State legislature might--I say ``might''--change the $250,000 cap to $500,000. So both of these associations have rejected that proposal which meant I wouldn't have a chance to get the necessary votes on either my side of the aisle or pick up a few votes on the other side of the aisle. They refused to move from a cap of $250,000 for noneconomic damages in even catastrophic cases. To me this is wrong because a $250,000 cap in 1975, when the California law set this cap, adjusted for inflation was worth $839,000 in 2002. So last year a $250,000 cap, passed in 1975, would be worth $839,000, if passed today. If a figure of $250,000 was adequate in 1975, why couldn't a figure of $500,000, which is lower than the 1975 cap adjusted for inflation, be acceptable this year? Now if a victim receives $250,000 today, this is equal to $40,000 in 1975. So when California led the Nation by passing the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act and setting a cap for noneconomic damages of $250,000 in 1975, everybody should know that that is worth $40,000 today. In my book, that is unacceptable. There are many specific instances of why it is unacceptable. Let me share one case. That is Linda McDougal. She is 46. She is a Navy veteran. She is an accountant, a mother. She was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer and underwent a double mastectomy. Two days later she was told that a mistake was made. She didn't have cancer and the amputation of both her breasts was not necessary. A pathologist had mistakenly switched her test results with another woman who had cancer. Is this Congress willing to say there should be a cap of $250,000 on noneconomic damages for this kind of mistake? I think not. A cap on noneconomic damages must take into account severe morbidity produced by a physician's mistake, such as amputating the wrong limb or transfusing a patient with the wrong type of blood. Unfortunately, because of the opposition of both the American Medical Association and the California Medical Association, I am not proposing an amendment at this time. My purpose was to help physicians and patients, and I deeply believe that a $500,000 noneconomic damage cap, coupled with the catastrophic exception I outlined, would accomplish this, would accomplish it fairly, and would stabilize premiums over the long term. I also suggest that State laws, where they exist, should prevail. So the California MICRA law, or any other State law, would prevail regardless of whether that State law was already enacted or retroactive. So, bottom line, I could not get 60 votes for this proposal with the opposition of physicians. So the result may well be an alternative because I don't believe the House bill can pass in the Senate in its present form. Let me say this. I have given this bill a great deal of thought. I really mean what I say--that I am prepared to support a reform bill. I am prepared to support a cap on noneconomic damages. But it has to be a cap that is realistic in view of today's time. It cannot be a cap that was passed 28 years ago that has an actual value of $40,000 today. So I am hopeful there will be another time and another place when a bill such as the one I have tried to outline might be found to be acceptable. In the interim, I will vote against S. 11. But, again, I stand ready to participate in a solution along the lines I have mentioned. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with Senator Ensign to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards instructional services to teach low-income students. Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the country to serve children attending schools with high concentrations of low-income students, from preschool through high school. It has been the ``anchor'' of Federal assistance to schools, since its origin in 1965. And while it has always been Congresses intent for Title I funds to be used for instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided a clear definition of what instructional services should entail. This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States scramble to comply with the new and expanded Title I accountability standards established in ``No Child Left Behind.'' While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law. I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear to States, as possible. In my own view, as it relates to Title I, we haven't lived up to our end of the bargain. During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill. Unfortunately, during conference consideration, my bill was stripped out and in its place language directing the General Accounting Office, GAO, to report on how States use their Title I funds was inserted. In April, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures. What GAO found is that while districts spent a relatively small amount--no more than 13 percent--of Title I funds on administration that ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative, or indirect, expenditures'' the accounting office couldn't precisely measure how much of their Title I funds were used for administration. Because Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the States, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling aspects of State priorities to complete the report. You see, the very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used--to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide-- became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions in their report. My bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for States to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country. My bill does two things: It defines Title I direct and indirect instructional services and sets a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. It ensures that the majority of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that ``a local educational agency may not use more than 10 percent of [Title I] funds received. . . . for indirect instructional services .'' By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the remaining funds for the indirect costs of administering Title I distribution. The second component of my bill defines direct and indirect services so that all States apply the same standards for Title I use nationwide. Examples of permissible Direct Services are: Employing teachers and other instructional personnel (including employee benefits); intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement; extending academic instruction beyond the normal school day and year, including summer school; providing instructional services to pre-kindergarten children for the transition to kindergarten; purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment and wiring to support instructional equipment; professional development; developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments; transporting students to assist them in improving academic achievement. Examples of indirect services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering the program; purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs; and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except for travel and attendance necessary for professional development. Current law on Title I is much too vague. It says, ``A State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.'' Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' That is just too nebulous. The U.S. Department of Education has given States a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used. Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: 1. Construction or acquisition of real property; and 2. payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for salary lost due to attendance at ``parental involvement'' meeting. I believe we should give the Department, States and districts clearer guidance in law. My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe that States must use their limited Federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn. Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service. I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them. What I am saying is that if Congress also intended for those funds to educate our neediest children, Federal guidance must be given to ensure that it happens. It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding accounts for a small percentage of total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools. That is why I am trying to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve success. Schools must focus their general education budget to pay for expenses that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services and retain the majority of Federal funds to improve academic achievement for poor children. It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This is one step toward that goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 50 years ago today a young and dynamic woman was elected as a member of the Los Angeles City Council. She was just 22 years old, making her the youngest council member in the city's history. The fact that such a record has been held for so long is in itself remarkable. But then again, we are talking about a truly remarkable woman, Rosalind Wyman. For many years now, Roz has worked tirelessly, for her family and friends, for the city she loves, for the State of California, for the Democratic Party, and for women everywhere. There is a wonderful photo of Roz when she was only 2 years old, smiling up at a portrait of Franklin Roosevelt. Her mother, Sarah, was a precinct captain for FDR's first Presidential campaign, running the operation out of the family's drugstore on 9th Street and Western Avenue in Los Angeles. Roz's father, Oscar, worried that such a partisan stance would cost them customers, but Sarah believed that electing Roosevelt was much more important. Small wonder, then, that Roz developed a deep and abiding passion for political activism and the Democratic Party. Her first campaign was working on behalf of Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, in her ill- fated 1950 Senate race against Richard Nixon, when he unfairly portrayed her as ``the Pink Lady.'' Then, 2 years later, Roz made history by becoming the youngest person ever elected to the L.A. City Council, and only its second woman member. She went on to serve in that body for the next 12 years, on the finance and budget committees, and eventually becoming president pro- tempore. As another woman who entered California politics in the 1950s, I can assure you that it was quite a different world back then. It was still very much a male club. In both Los Angeles and San Francisco, one was hard-pressed to find a women's bathroom anywhere near the chambers. Something else Roz inherited from her mother was a love for baseball. In fact, there is nowhere that Roz Wyman would rather be than at Dodger Stadium, at the home plate corner of the Dodger dugout, where she has had her seats for over 40 years now. It is no exaggeration to say that the Dodgers would not have come to Los Angeles without the vision, fortitude, and sheer determination of Roz Wyman. Just ask Tommy Lasorda, who said: ``What this lady did for baseball in this city, they should erect a monument to her.'' Today, it is hard to believe how polarizing the effort was to bring the Dodgers from Brooklyn in the late 1950s. Yet Roz, believing that a professional sports team was just what L.A. needed to cement its image as a major American city, braved death threats and earned many political enemies in order to see this come about. One year after coming to L.A., however, the Dodgers went on to win the World Series, as they did again in 1963, 1965, 1981, and 1988, along with three National League Championships in the 1970s. No one today could imagine the city without one of baseball's greatest franchises. One of the other defining moments in the modern history of Los Angeles, which placed the city firmly on the map as one of America's premier cities, was when it hosted the Democratic Convention in 1960. And here, too, Roz Wyman played a vital, even pivotal role. She was an ardent Kennedy supporter, having supported him in 1956, in his unsuccessful bid for the Vice Presidential nomination. She understood the natural connection between Hollywood and Washington, and before many others recognized Kennedy's enormous charisma and appeal, along with the growing importance of television to electoral politics. And with her late husband, Eugene, who served as chairman of the California Democratic Party, they proved to be extraordinarily effective fundraisers and campaigners. They were responsible for enlisting the likes of Frank Sinatra to sing by the swimming pool, as Kennedy worked his political magic with the delegates. It is easy to forget that back then, party conventions were not the largely scripted events that they are today. There was real drama-- nothing was inevitable--and delegates could change their vote at the last minute. Such was Roz's influence with the Kennedy campaign, that she was able to convince Robert Kennedy to change the venue for JFK's fabled ``New Frontier'' speech from the Sports Arena to the grander Memorial Coliseum next door. She went on, 8 years later, to work closely on Robert Kennedy's bid for the White House, which ended so tragically in Los Angeles. During the 1970s, both with her husband Gene and after his unexpected passing, Roz was a highly effective advocate for the Democratic Party, raising awareness on a wide array of issues. I first met Roz when I was mayor of San Francisco and she served as convention chair and chief executive officer of the 1984 Democratic National Convention, the first woman--Democrat or Republican--ever selected to run a Presidential Convention. In that position she oversaw the entire planning and management of the convention and its $13 million budget. We soon became close friends, forming a bond that has grown ever stronger over the years. She was already a living legend, already a star of our party, and she did an absolutely stellar job, not just for the Democratic Party but for the city of San Francisco. President Clinton recognized Roz's contribution, back in 2000, when he said: ``She reminds me of my ties to my roots. Her loyalty to our party and our candidates is something I hope I can emulate for the rest of my life.'' I share President Clinton's sentiments--and I, too, hope that I can emulate Roz Wyman. A pioneering force in American politics, she is my Field Marshall, my trusted adviser, and most importantly to me, my very dear friend.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with Senator Ensign to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards instructional services to teach low-income students. Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the country to serve children attending schools with high concentrations of low-income students, from preschool through high school. It has been the ``anchor'' of Federal assistance to schools, since its origin in 1965. And while it has always been Congresses intent for Title I funds to be used for instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided a clear definition of what instructional services should entail. This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States scramble to comply with the new and expanded Title I accountability standards established in ``No Child Left Behind.'' While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law. I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear to States, as possible. In my own view, as it relates to Title I, we haven't lived up to our end of the bargain. During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill. Unfortunately, during conference consideration, my bill was stripped out and in its place language directing the General Accounting Office, GAO, to report on how States use their Title I funds was inserted. In April, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures. What GAO found is that while districts spent a relatively small amount--no more than 13 percent--of Title I funds on administration that ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative, or indirect, expenditures'' the accounting office couldn't precisely measure how much of their Title I funds were used for administration. Because Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the States, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling aspects of State priorities to complete the report. You see, the very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used--to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide-- became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions in their report. My bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for States to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country. My bill does two things: It defines Title I direct and indirect instructional services and sets a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. It ensures that the majority of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that ``a local educational agency may not use more than 10 percent of [Title I] funds received. . . . for indirect instructional services .'' By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the remaining funds for the indirect costs of administering Title I distribution. The second component of my bill defines direct and indirect services so that all States apply the same standards for Title I use nationwide. Examples of permissible Direct Services are: Employing teachers and other instructional personnel (including employee benefits); intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement; extending academic instruction beyond the normal school day and year, including summer school; providing instructional services to pre-kindergarten children for the transition to kindergarten; purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment and wiring to support instructional equipment; professional development; developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments; transporting students to assist them in improving academic achievement. Examples of indirect services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering the program; purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs; and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except for travel and attendance necessary for professional development. Current law on Title I is much too vague. It says, ``A State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.'' Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' That is just too nebulous. The U.S. Department of Education has given States a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used. Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: 1. Construction or acquisition of real property; and 2. payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for salary lost due to attendance at ``parental involvement'' meeting. I believe we should give the Department, States and districts clearer guidance in law. My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe that States must use their limited Federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn. Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service. I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them. What I am saying is that if Congress also intended for those funds to educate our neediest children, Federal guidance must be given to ensure that it happens. It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding accounts for a small percentage of total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools. That is why I am trying to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve success. Schools must focus their general education budget to pay for expenses that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services and retain the majority of Federal funds to improve academic achievement for poor children. It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This is one step toward that goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise to introduce with Senator Wyden a bill to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in our country's magnificent national forests. No one who watched last week as Arizona's community of Summerhaven on Mount Lemmon burned can doubt the importance of this issue. My heart goes out to the residents of Summerhaven, and to the others who will be displaced by the fires yet to come this summer. Americans know that there is something wrong with our national forests. For too long we have suppressed fires, gradually letting brush and small trees multiply until many of our forests are now choked by a dense thicket. Today, there are 57 million acres of Federal lands at the highest risk of catastrophic forest fires. If we do not take action now, these forests could go up in smoke. This bill we are introducing today is balancing, and it will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in our country's magnificent national forests. This legislation would speed up the environmental review process-- without sacrificing the most important environmental protections. It also would protect the communities which face the highest risk and safeguard old growth stands and large trees. And it would include sensible provisions on judicial review that will help projects go forward quickly without compromising our independent judiciary. These are provisions that makes sense, and I hope that my colleagues will support the bill. We have crafted our bill around three fundamental principles: We should focus limited Federal resources on protecting communities and on the forest lands truly most at risk; We should speed up the environmental review process, but without sacrificing the most important environmental protections; and We should protect old growth stands and large trees. Let me show how the bill achieves these three goals. First, the bill prioritizes our efforts. Many people believe that we should protect communities first. The bill does so. Seventy percent of the funding is directed to the wildland-urban interface near communities. Of course, conditions vary by State. The bill allows Governors to adjust the percentage of work that is to be done within the wildland-- urban interface for their State, up to a maximum of 75 percent, or down to a minimum of 50 percent. By way of contrast, H.R. 1904, which passed the House, includes no focus on protecting communities. All the money can be spent far from communities under H.R. 1904, even if the Governor of a State wishes otherwise. Senator Wyden and I believe that in addition to protecting communities, there are some forest lands that should be thinned to ensure that catastrophic fires do not devastate the forest and eliminate habitat for the species that have there. In the last century, Americans have rigorously suppressed fires, stamping them out whenever they start. In certain forests like ponderosa pine, these fires would naturally have cleared out the brush and small trees every 10 or 20 years or so. In the absence of these fires, brush has grown into ``doghair thickets'' with dangerous levels of fuel loadings. When fires burn now in these forests, they will be so hot that they won't just clear out the brush but will kill the large trees and often scorch the soil. These are the forests where we need to focus our efforts. We thus target thinning projects to forests that are both Fire Regime I and Condition Class 3. Fire Regime I forests are those that used to have low-intensity, brush-clearing fires; and Condition Class 3 forests are the most altered from their natural condition. The combination of Fire Regime I and Condition Class 3 are the highest priority lands for treatment. We also direct projects to municipal watersheds and diseased or windblown forests that are in Condition Class 3. If we don't protect the municipal watersheds, catastrophic fires could strip off the tree cover that prevents soils from eroding into creeks and lakes. Municipalities' water quality could suffer. In contrast to our bill, H.R. 1904 fails to prioritize brush-clearing projects for the areas that need it the most. Instead, H.R. 1904 provides expedited processes for lands that are only moderately altered by fire suppression--Condition Class 2 lands in addition to Condition Class 3. In many of the forests where H.R. 1904 would direct brush-clearing work, there naturally would have been severe fires that burned all the trees in the stand. After a thinning project, fires in these forests will still behave the same way, scorching and killing most of the trees. Thus, much of the thinning called for in H.R. 1904 would have little effect on the fire behavior or forest health. Senator Wyden and I have worked very hard to develop a bill that speeds up the review process so important work can get done without sacrificing environmental protections. Almost everyone agrees that we need to work quickly to protect the areas immediately around communities. There is little controversy or debate over these projects. The Forest Service has proposed an analytical short-cut for these projects, which requires very little environmental analysis and no formal pubic comment process or administrative appeal. There is some uncertainty, however, over the Forest Service's proposed approach. People can claim that laws Congress has previously passed will require some of these projects to be held up by more environmental analysis or administrative appeals. Our bill eliminates this uncertainty. When the Forest Service works in the immediate vicinity of a community, the bill would make absolutely clear that there need to be no environmental analysis or administrative appeals. The only exception is where there might be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major threat to endangered species. We also prohibit the Forest Service from conducting clearcuts around communities, requiring them to focus on clearing out the brush. By way of comparison, the House-passed bill does not provide any assistance to thinning projects in the immediate vicinity of communities, even though everyone agrees on the need for these projects. Senator Wyden and I have also sped up the process for projects outside the immediate vicinity of communities. These projects are more controversial, so we want to make sure that the public has some opportunity for input. In the past, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have been able to conduct the majority of brush-clearing mechanical treatment following a National Environmental Policy Act process known as environmental assessments. Our bill simplified these environmental assessments in several ways. The bill provides one round of public comment--the administrative appeal process--rather than two. The bill shortens the time frame for administrative appeals from 90 to 60 days. Finally, the appeal deciding offer can make necessary changes rather than having to send the project back to the original decisionmaker for further time-consuming review. Together, these changes will likely speed up the process by a few months or more. We do all this without eliminating public comment or gutting core parts of the environmental analysis. In contrast, the House-passed bill would eliminate the requirement that the Forest Service consider alternatives to the proposed project as part of its environmental analysis. In other words, the Forest Service doesn't have to study other, less damaging ways of undertaking the project--it can just do the project the way it wants. Many people think that public debate over alternatives is the core of the National Environmental Policy Act. Our bill does not eliminate this important environmental protection. Another important part of our bill is its protection of magnificent old growth stands. The remaining groves of these trees provide a connection to nature untrammeled by human activity, a connection that many of us cherish. Our bill would require full protection of these old growth stands. In addition, outside old growth stands, the bill focuses on small-diameter trees and protects large trees that promote fire-resistant stands and species diversity. By way of contrast, H.R. 1904 provides no protection for these magnificent resources. Let me now talk about judicial review. No one wants court cases to go on too long. In addition, people should not be able to tie up projects by gaming the system and picking and choosing the friendliest courts to hear their lawsuits. Our bill addresses these problems. The bill encourages courts, to the maximum extent practicable, to resolve lawsuits over brush-clearing projects quickly. These are important projects for the safety of our communities and our forests, and it is appropriate to give them some priority. In addition, we require that potential litigants file suit in the same judicial district where a fuels reduction project takes place, No one can game the system by looking for a friendly judge somewhere else. Finally, we limit temporary injunctions that are typically issued at the outset of a case to 60 days. They can be renewed if necessary--but the challengers to a projects must submit updates explaining why the injunctions should be extended. This provision prevents projects from being held up any longer than is strictly necessary. These changes will expedite the process--but they still respect our court system's essential autonomy. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I spend much of my time trying to make sure our court system is as fair as possible. Americans count on a judiciary independent of the executive branch to preserve their liberties and to right any wrongs that their government commits. I think it is very important that we do not interfere with the independence of our judiciary. The House-passed bill would require the courts to give weight to certain findings by the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. Even if projects had been found to violate the environmental laws, courts would be told to give weight to the agencies' findings and allow many of the projects to go ahead anyway. This is a dangerous provision for a bill to include, and I cannot support it. I believe our bill includes more sensible provisions on judicial review that will help projects go forward quickly without compromising the independence of our judiciary. Our bill includes several provisions to address forest health problems on private and State lands. We authorize $50 million annually in emergency grants to States and localities where lives are at risk. The last few years have seen vast insect epidemics killing millions of trees in Southern California, Arizona, and elsewhere. In places like Lake Arrowhead, Big Bear and Idyllwild in Southern California, communities are surrounded by dead and dying trees that are perfect kindling for a catastrophic fire. There is a real threat to people's lives that we must address. There is now no good funding source for clearing evacuation routes and clearing around schools and other emergency shelters that are on State and private lands. The emergency grants in the bill would authorize funds for these essential purposes. The bill also includes two measures to encourage homeowners to clear brush around their houses and install non-flammable roofs. A study of Southern California fires by Forest Service researcher Jack Cohen has shown that these measures could reduce a blaze's threat to homes by as much as 85 to 95 percent. Our bill would encourage these home-saving practices in two ways: The bill would prioritize grants to those communities that encourage brush-clearing and use of non-flammable roofs or develop comprehensive fire plans. The bill would record the Sense of Congress that insurers should offer lower premiums to homeowners who take steps to protect their homes. Our bill would also include grants to encourage the use of woody material, or biomass, for energy production. Biomass-to-energy plants serve multiple beneficial purposes: one, they are a clean and renewable source of energy; and two, they make brush-clearing projects more cost- effective, so we can protect more with the finite Federal dollars available. Finally, our bill would also include contracting provisions to benefit rural communities. The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior would be required to use ``best value contracting'' for brush- clearing projects under the Act. This contracting approach requires the agencies to consider other factors besides the price of the bid in awarding contractors. Bidders would be rewarded for such factors as their commitment to hire local workers, and their past record of environmental stewardship. I would like to close by saying that this is truly a bipartisan issue. All of us, Democrat and Republican, have an interest in clearing out dangerous accumulations of brush in our national forests. All of us have an interest as well in protecting the magnificent old growth stands and species habitat that Americans cherish, and in upholding our environmental laws. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass a bill as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2003. This legislation will require that individuals are notified when their most sensitive personal information is stolen from a corporate or government database. Specifically, the bill would require government or private entities to notify individuals if a data breach has compromised their Social Security number, driver's license number, credit card number, debit card number, or financial account numbers. In most cases, if authorities know that someone is a victim of a crime, the victim is notified. But that isn't the case if an individual's most sensitive personal information is stolen from an electronic database. Unfortunately, data breaches are becoming all too common. Consider the following incidents which have compromised the records of hundreds of thousands of Americans. On April 5, 2002, a hacker broke into the electronic records of Steven P. Teale Data Center, the payroll facility for California State employees. The hacker compromises files containing the first initials, middle initials, and last names, Social Security numbers, and payroll deduction information of approximately 265,000 people. Despite the breathtaking potential harm of the crime, the breach was not publicly acknowledged and State employees were not made aware of their vulnerability to identify theft until May 24, 2002--17 days later. On December 14, 2002, TriWest Health Care Alliance, a company that provides health care coverage for military personnel and their families, was burglarized at its Phoenix, AZ offices. Thieves broke into a management suite and stole laptop computers and computer hard drives containing the names, addressed, telephone numbers, birth dates and Social Security numbers of 562,000 military service members, dependents and retirees, as well as medical claims records for people on active duty in the Persian Gulf. In February 2003, a hacker gained access to 10 million Visa, MasterCard, American Express Card and Discovery Card numbers from the databases of a credit processor, DPI Merchant services of Omaha, NE. Company officials maintained that the intruder did not obtain any personal information for these card numbers such as the account holder's name, address, telephone number or Social Security number. However, at least one bank canceled and replaced 8,800 cards when it found out about the security breach. And in March of this year, a University of Texas student was charged with hacking into the university's computer system and stealing 55,000 Social Security numbers. These are just some examples of the types of breaches that are occurring today. Except for California, which as a notification law going into effect in July, no State of Federal law requires companies or agencies to tell individuals of the misappropriation of their personal data. I strongly believe Americans should be notified if a hacker gets access to their most personal data. This is both a matter of principle and a practical measure to curb identity theft. Let me take a moment to describe the proposed legislation. The Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act will set a national standard for notification of consumers when a data breach occurs. Specifically, the legislation requires a business or government entity to notify an individual when there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a hacker or other criminal has obtained unencrypted personal data maintained by the entity. Personal data is defined by the bill as an individual's Social Security number, State identification number, driver's license number, financial account number, or credit card number. The legislation's notification scheme minimizes the burdens on companies or agencies that must report a data breach. In general, notice would have to be provided to each person whose data was compromised in writing or through e-mail. But there are important exceptions. First, companies that have developed their own reasonable notification policies are given a safe harbor under the bill and are exempted from its notification requirements. Second, encrypted data is exempted. Third, where it is too expensive or impractical, e.g., contact address information is incomplete, to notify every individual who is harmed, the bill allows entities to send out an alternative form of notice called ``substitute notice.'' Substitute notice includes posting notice on a website or notifying major media. Substitute notice would be triggered if any of the following factors exist: 1. the agency or person demonstrates that the cost of providing direct notice would exceed $250,000; 2. the affected class of subject persons to be notified exceeds 500,000; or 3. the agency or person does not have sufficient contact information to notify people whose information is at risk. The bill has a tough, but fair enforcement regime. Entities that fail to comply with the bill will be subject to fines by the Federal Trade Commission of $5,000 per violation or up to $25,000 per day while the violation persists. State Attorneys General can also file suit to enforce the statute. Additionally, the bill would allow California's new law to remain in effect, but preempt conflicting State laws. It is my understanding that legislators in a number of States are developing bills modeled after the California law. Reportedly, some of these bills have requirements that are inconsistent with the California legislation. It is not fair to put companies in a situation that forces them to comply with database notification laws of 50 different States. I strongly believe individuals have a right to be notified when their most sensitive information is compromised--because it is truly their information. Ask the ordinary person on the street if he or she would like to know if a criminal had illegally gained access to their personal information from a database--the answer will be a resounding yes. Enabling consumers to be notified in a timely manner of security breaches involving their personal data will help combat the growth scourge of identity theft. According to the Identity Theft Resources Center, a typical identity theft victim takes six to 12 months to discover that a fraud has been perpetuated against them. As Linda Foley, Executive Director of the Identity Theft Resources center puts it: ``Identity theft is a crime of opportunity and time is essential at every junction. Every minute that passes after the breach until detection and notification increases the damage done to the consumer victim, the commercial entities, and law enforcement's ability to track and catch the criminals. It takes less than a minute to fill out a credit application and to start an action that could permanently affect the victim's life. Multiply that times hundreds of minutes, hundreds of opportunities to use or sell the information stolen and you just begin to understand the enormity of the problem that the lack of notification can cause.'' If individuals are informed of the theft of their Social Security numbers or other sensitive information, they can take immediate preventative action. They can place a fraud alert on their credit report to prevent crooks from obtaining credit cards in their name; they can monitor their credit reports to see if unauthorized activity has occurred; they can cancel any affected financial or consumer or utility accounts; they can change their phone numbers if necessary. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this vitally needed legislation. This bill will give ordinary Americans more control and confidence about the safety of their personal information. Americans will have the security of knowing that should a breach occur, they will be notified and be able to take protective action. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me just read one part of the Resolution from Marin County which will give you an idea of the opposition to the Graton tribe's proposed casino: RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin calls on its elected members of the United States Senate, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and its elected member of the House of Representatives, Lynn Woolsey, to assist the residents of Marin and the entire North Bay to preserve their environment by introducing legislation that would amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act and/ or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to stop the unregulated creation of tribal lands and to subject development of tribal lands in the Marin and Sonoma Counties at a minimum to the regulatory and approval processes applicable to newly acquired tribal lands by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. While the counties acknowledge that the Graton have a right to be recognized, they object to the site selected by the tribe and they especially object to language in the Restoration Act that precludes the local community, the Governor, or the Secretary of the Interior from providing input on the suitability of this location for land taken into trust for gaming purposes. There is a problematic section of the Restoration Act that states, ``Upon application by the Tribe, the Secretary shall accept into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any real property located in Marin or Sonoma County . . .'' According to the Department of the Interior, this language removes any discretion by the Secretary as well as any tribal obligations for consultation with the surrounding community or environmental review, as required by the normal process under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for newly acquired land taken into trust for gaming purposes. According to the Department of the Interior, the tribe must only conduct a hazardous materials review and show title to the land for land to be taken into trust. This could be completed in 9 months--and it is an inadequate review in my opinion. Since the local communities are seeking a remedy which would restore the Secretary's discretion in approving its land trust application and allow local government to provide input in the process, I am introducing this legislation today that will change the ``shall take land into trust'' to ``may take land into trust.'' This legislation will also require the two-part test that is standard under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to apply so that the State and local communities have input in the process. There is precedent for this change. In 1994, legislation was passed restoring the United Auburn Tribe with the same directive to the Secretary of the Interior, requiring that land ``shall'' be taken into trust for the Tribe. One of the restoration act's sponsors, Congressman John Doolittle sponsored an amendment to change ``shall'' to ``may'' after it had been passed, thereby affording the Secretary of Interior discretion in accepting particular parcels of land into trust and local government officials an opportunity to weigh in on the Tribe's proposed site. The result of that change was that the Auburn Tribe and Placer County officials successfully cooperated in not only identifying a mutually agreeable site, but they signed a Memorandum of Understanding to mitigate potential impacts from the proposed Thunder Valley Casino. And earlier this month, the tribe opened its casino. Today California is home to 109 federally recognized tribes. 61 tribes have gaming compacts with the State and there are 54 tribal casinos. With more than 50 tribes seeking Federal recognition and approximately 23 recognized tribes seeking gaming compacts from the Governor, revenues from California's tribal gaming industry are expected to surpass Nevada's by the end of the decade. The dramatic growth in tribal gaming in California has the potential to yield much needed benefits for tribal members in terms of healthcare, education and general welfare, as Congress and California voters intended. However, the question is not whether gaming should be permitted, but rather how and where. Those questions were asked and answered in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, IGRA. But without the modest change made by this legislation, the Graton tribe will be allowed to develop an off-reservation casino outside the requirements established in IGRA, the first time such an exception has ever been made for a California tribe. Allowing this to happen would set a dangerous precedent not only for California, but every State where tribal gaming is permitted. The changes we are seeking today are extremely modest. We are not reversing any restoration of the tribe. We are not infringing on Native American sovereignty. We are not even blocking the casino proposal. We are only seeking to give the State and the local communities a voice in the process. They were promised the tribe would not open a casino. That promise was broken, so the least we can do is ensure a normal review will take place. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Indian Affairs Committee to pass this legislation quickly. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.