Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his personal comments. He knows I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him. It is unusual--as a matter of fact, I cannot remember in all these years when we have ever been on opposite sides of one of these questions. Let me state to the Senator my great fear. We all forget beneath the surface this Government has tremendous power. When that power is exercised against a person in this country, alone as a visitor, has no rights, it is enormous what can happen. What my deep concern is that overzealous prosecutors will use this where they should use title III and get a criminal warrant instead of a FISA warrant because of the removal of the agent of the foreign power. We keep the connection with the basics of the FISA statute which is surveillance related to an agent of the foreign power. We keep that. That is the justification for FISA. We give the judge the ability to make that as a presumption-- ergo, giving the judge some discretion not to make it, and therefore the individual seeks the warrant--an FBI agent or whoever it is--goes to title III and gets a criminal warrant. Once you get a FISA warrant, the benefits from the law enforcement side of the FISA warrant are much greater than the title III warrant. It is a small protection. I don't believe, in my heart of hearts--and if this were to pass and the Senator from Arizona showed me that it did in any way prevent the FISA court from exercising its discretion just as you want it to, I will change it. I would be the first one to come back. It prevents this misuse of a prosecutor who should be getting a title III warrant, who will come to the FISA court instead because the FISA court will be a rubberstamp, and because myself, a visiting Indian, Pakistani, Muslim, Frenchman, Italian, anybody in Los Angeles who happens to have in their pocket a one-way ticket and maybe a pocket knife--a box cutter may be out of date--and somebody has a suspicion, they do not have to prove anything. And they can surveil me, they can wiretap me, they can exert all of the surveillance powers that are used under FISA. They do not know whether I am going to commit a criminal act and they have no evidence of anything else. That is what title III is for. Title III has a little heavier cause burden, but as the Senator said, there is probable cause in both. But the benefits of the FISA warrant are superior to the benefits of the title III warrant in their duration. So you can do all this to somebody for 90 days instead of 30 days and you do not have to come back and renew the warrant once every year. That is my concern. As I read your legislation, there is no discretion. That is the problem I have with it. This is such a slight change, it is kind of a little tweak that a judge can say, hey, now, let's wait and see what you are doing here. If the Senator would like to respond, I am happy to yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The presumption would be that the target or the individual would be an agent of a foreign power. Otherwise, you could have this against the Unabomber, Oklahoma City. Of course, they are American citizens, so I understand that does not apply, but that same kind of situation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield such time as the Senator from Vermont, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, requires.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What I don't understand is why you do not want to give the judge that small bit of discretion with a presumption. The judge can presume it. We both know the history and the history is 100 percent if you include the appeal of FISA judges in granting warrants. So there will not be a problem there. I am concerned about the overreach. I am concerned about the misuse. And the only way we could figure to counter that was to keep the agent a foreign power, provide this presumption that a judge could use in that one case. Senator, neither you nor Senator Feingold nor I would ever know if there was an overreach. That is what makes this far more dangerous, the fact that it is so secret.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair, I think we can yield back the remainder of our time, I say to the Senator, and hold the vote, if everybody so desires.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I know Senator Rockefeller is on his way.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will yield time, Mr. President, and I will be very happy to have Senator Feingold in this. I think this is really the kind of discussion that we should be having. I welcome the free flow. If I knew a better way of solving the problem Senator Kyl mentioned, I would do it. But my view and what Intelligence staff and others have said to me is that the way it is worded creates a rubberstamp out of a FISA judge, once you take out that agent of a foreign power connection. I guess the reason they believe that is that it puts them into the other side, the title III side. If I could think of another way, I would. But it is one added guarantee against an overreach. You and I have both known zealous prosecutors. You and I have both known people who would misuse this. The question comes, How do we prevent misuse from happening? I am happy to yield to Senator Feingold.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a substitute amendment to S. 113, the Kyl-Schumer FISA bill. I ask you to bear with me because the explanation goes on for a while. I am also pleased that Senator Rockefeller, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, and Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, are cosponsors of this amendment. I am pleased to also acknowledge that Senators Dodd, Edwards, Feingold, Boxer, and Wyden are also cosponsors of the amendment. Let me try to briefly describe the difference between current law, S. 113, and my amendment. S. 113 is the Kyl-Schumer FISA amendment. First, the Kyl-Schumer amendment only applies to non-U.S. persons. I want to make clear that it does not cover green card holders under that amendment. Under current law, the FISA court may only grant a FISA application against a non-U.S. person if the Government can show probable cause that the target is working on behalf of a foreign power or a terrorist group. The Government also has to certify that it is seeking foreign intelligence information that can't be obtained by any other means. As I understand the Kyl-Schumer bill, it drops a primary requirement for FISA warrants; that is, the individual or the target be agents of a foreign power. Under Kyl-Schumer, this prerequisite is gone. That is what the so-called lone wolf deals with. This would then give the FISA court no discretion to deny applications for FISA orders against a true so-called lone wolf. These are alleged international terrorists operating completely on their own. This is confusing. In other words, current law gives the FISA court no discretion to grant FISA orders in closed cases. But S. 113--Kyl- Schumer--gives judges no discretion to deny FISA the FISA court application in closed cases. Both of these circumstances raise certain problems. My amendment is essentially a compromise. It grants the court a presumption. So the FISA court may presume that a target is an agent of a foreign power, or the court may choose not to invoke that presumption. The bottom line is the court is given some discretion. In other words, the court may choose to grant a FISA order despite a lack of evidence that a target is working on behalf of a foreign power. Similarly, the court may choose to deny an order against a true lone wolf. It is up to the court.Federal judges in title III criminal cases have similar discretion. Although the standard there is about whether the Government can show probable cause that a person has committed a crime or will commit a crime, that is a very different standard than under FISA. Federal judges have not abused that discretion and, in fact, in rare cases have been able to act as a check on the Government to prevent overreaching and abuse. Why do the sponsors of S. 113 show less trust for FISA judges in the FISA content? In fact, such trust is even more warranted in the FISA content. Not only is the FISA process secret and hard to keep accountable, but the FISA court has only denied one FISA application in its 25-year history. Such a lack of trust is even less necessary given the fact that even if the Government is unable to get a FISA order against a target, it remains completely free to use all the tools of the criminal process under title III to get search and wiretap orders against the target. The bottom line is, our amendment preserves FISA's agent-of-a- foreign-power requirement without jeopardizing our security. Our amendment allows the Government to get FISA orders against suspected international terrorists even in close cases where the Government cannot show the target is working on behalf of a foreign power or terrorist group. However, unlike S. 113, the amendment also ensures the FISA court is more than a rubberstamp and has discretion to deny a FISA application if the Government overreaches by attempting to use FISA authority. I now would like to discuss the issue in somewhat greater detail. Mr. President, at times of crisis, it is possible the Government can overreach in both legislative and executive decisionmaking with respect to our criminal and intelligence laws. That can have unfortunate consequences for both our security and individual rights. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was passed in 1978. It was the first statute ever passed in the United States to provide a statutory procedure for the authorization of clandestine activities of our Government to obtain foreign intelligence. Before it passed, then-Attorney General Griffin Bell testified in favor of the bill before Congress. He noted the ``delicate balance'' that needed to be struck between ``adequate intelligence to guarantee our Nation's security on the one hand and preservation of basic human rights on the other.'' He stated: In my view this bill strikes the balance, sacrifices neither our security nor our civil liberties, and assures that the abuses of the past will remain in the past. . . . Now, what does he mean by ``abuses of the past''? Decades earlier, America saw what happened in World War II with Japanese Americans who were removed from their homes, their businesses, and their schools, and placed in interment camps in violation of their rights. We do not want that to happen ever again in this country. I am not saying this is an identically similar situation. I am concerned, however, about zealousness and overreach because now we are engaged in a global war on terror. In conducting this war, we must be careful that we not overreach when the temptations are so great. This kind of war is unprecedented for the United States. It is unprecedented and unbelievable that anybody could fly four big planes, three into buildings, and kill 3,000 people. This is beyond our ken. America and Americans want to protect our homeland and our individuals, notwithstanding this is an entirely secret process and, as such, the laws that govern it must be balanced, must be carefully crafted, and must prevent it, lest someone use them to overreach. It has happened in the past, so you can assume it could well happen in the future. This is especially true, as I said, with FISA. I supported reporting S. 113, the Kyl-Schumer FISA bill we are debating, in the Judiciary Committee. I agree with my colleagues--there is a clear problem here, needing a solution; namely, the potential difficulty the Government may have in obtaining FISA orders against certain international terrorist so-called ``lone wolves.'' These are people who have no affiliation with a terrorist group, no affiliation as an agent of a foreign power. Under FISA, a ``foreign power'' is simply defined as ``two people conspiring,'' so it is a very easy goal and target. A problem arises in cases where the Government knows of a foreign individual who may be involved in terrorism but cannot yet prove a connection to foreign groups or governments. This problem stems from the proof requirement under FISA in current law. To get a FISA order against a foreign visitor to the United States under current law, the Government needs to show two key things: First, that the individual is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Again, that is defined as two people working together. A foreign power could be a foreign government or an international terrorist group as defined. And second, that it is seeking ``foreign intelligence information'' that cannot be obtained by other means. This symbolizes the very purpose of FISA: to gather foreign intelligence. Criminal courts are for criminal cases, and the FISA court was set up specially to deal with cases where the Government wishes to obtain information or intelligence about the activities of foreign powers. The problem is this: Under this current standard, it may well be difficult for the Government to meet the foreign power requirement if the Government does not yet have enough evidence of a connection to a foreign group, entity, or power. Some have described this problem as the ``false lone wolf'' problem, where you have an individual who may appear at first to be operating as a ``lone wolf,'' even though that individual is really an agent of a larger group. That was one of the alleged problems with the pre-September 11 investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui. The FBI did not learn until after September 11 that Moussaoui had links to al-Qaida and may have been the intended 20th hijacker. As a result, the Government may have been reluctant to request a FISA warrant because they did not think the intelligence they had could connect Moussaoui to an international group or government. So there is no question in my mind that we need to amend FISA to fix this problem. And I applaud my colleagues, Senators Kyl and Schumer, for working so diligently to solve it. But the Kyl-Schumer bill also redefines ``agent of a foreign power'' to include any non-U.S. individual preparing to engage in international terrorism. In other words, it essentially eliminates the foreign power requirement altogether. This change would allow the Government to get a FISA search or wiretap order against any foreign individual in the United States who is preparing to engage in international terrorism, regardless of whether the person is really an agent of a foreign government or terror group, and regardless of whether there is any potential to gather foreign intelligence. Again, it is this foreign intelligence component that defines the very purpose of FISA. As a result, I believe this change goes too far. Under S. 113, for the first time ever, the Government will be able to use FISA against any non-U.S. citizen preparing to engage in international terrorism--even individuals whom the Government knows have no connection at all to anyone else engaged in international terrorism. There would be no check at all on the Government's use of FISA against many common criminals who just happen to be noncitizens and, therefore, the Government might be able to use this secret FISA court to obtain warrants that: (A) are easier to get; (B) last longer; and (C) are less subject to normal judicial scrutiny than criminal warrants under title III or regular criminal statutes. FISA wiretap orders, for instance, are good for 4 times longer than normal criminal warrants--120 days versus 30 days--giving the Government a clear incentive to use this process even against common criminals. These orders can be reauthorized indefinitely each year for 1-year periods. The same is true for physical search orders under FISA, although these are good for 90 days, and 1-year extensions are subject to the requirement in current law that the judge find ``probable cause to believe that no property of any United States person will be acquired during the period.'' Under FISA, as modified by S. 113, the Government must show by probable cause only that a foreign national is engaged in international terrorism or preparation thereof. You might listen to that and you might think: What is wrong with that? We all want that. I want it, too. But in many instances, this probable cause standard will be easier to meet than the traditional criminal probable cause standard. For example, for a title III wiretap, the Government must show that there is probable cause to believe an individual is about to commit or has committed an enumerated crime. To get a search order, the Government must show probable cause that the search will result in the discovery of offending items connected with the criminal activity. However, under S. 113, the Government need only show probable cause that the person is engaging in ``activities in preparation'' for international terrorism. Many ``activities in preparation'' for international terrorism are not crimes. For example, a foreign visitor who bought a one-way airline ticket and a box cutter would arguably qualify as a person engaging in activities in preparation for international terrorism, even in the absence of other evidence that he or she might be an international terrorist. However, these two activities, taken alone, would clearly not demonstrate probable cause that the person would commit a crime. These activities may be entirely innocent. As a result--and I don't believe this is anyone's intent--S. 113 could easily serve as a clarion call to all aggressive prosecutors who want to listen in on or search the homes of targets of investigation without ever having to prove that any crime may be committed or that foreign intelligence may be gathered. By allowing FISA to be used against all solo suspected international terrorists, S. 113 runs counter to the whole purpose of FISA, which is to allow the Government to get foreign intelligence by searching and wiretapping people working for other countries and groups against U.S. interests. S. 113 essentially eliminates any discretion the FISA court has to turn down a case--this is my big problem with it--thus enabling the Government to overreach. I am not saying that it will overreach. But because it is a secret process, the laws we pass have to prevent that overreach. By nullifying the requirement that the target of an investigation has some connection, any connection, to a foreign entity or government, this legislation essentially makes the FISA court a rubberstamp. The court will be required to grant a FISA order, even if there is no probable cause to indicate a connection to a foreign power; indeed, even if there is clear evidence that the individual is operating completely on their own. In fact, even if the Government admits that the terrorist is operating alone and that there is no foreign intelligence to be gathered, the FISA court must still grant the order under S. 113. That is not what FISA is meant to be. Put simply: The legislation goes too far. Let me be clear: We who are sponsoring this amendment are not trying to protect international terrorists, and our amendment does nothing to protect them. The vast resources of the Federal Government and the powerful tools of the criminal process remain available to target and investigate any terrorist against whom the Government is unable to get a FISA order. What our amendment will do is retain the original purpose of FISA-- the seeking of foreign intelligence. S. 113 would not. Our amendment is simple. Rather than simply eliminating the foreign power requirement altogether, our amendment would allow the FISA court judge to presume that a foreign terrorist is also an agent of a foreign power, even if there is no evidence supporting that presumption. On the other hand, under our amendment, the FISA court could also refuse to presume this connection in troubling cases of Government overreach. Thus, a FISA court judge would have some discretion. What does this mean? In the Moussaoui case, for instance, even though the Government did not yet have evidence that Moussaoui was acting as an agent of a foreign power, both our amendment and S. 113 would allow the Government to get a warrant. The only difference is that our amendment would allow the judge to carefully look at the case and, if the court determined Moussaoui was clearly acting alone, the warrant could be denied. I know some will argue that this casts too much doubt upon the outcome of cases and that, as a result, FISA orders will be too hard to obtain. But in most cases, if you think about it, the outcome will be exactly the same, whether under our amendment or the underlying bill. Others may argue that this amendment might give liberal judges too much power to deny FISA orders in every case or, as Senator Schumer put it today, ``inject gray into the statute.'' But in reality, I believe these judges should have some discretion. This is an entirely secret process. By providing this presumption, we give judges that discretion. That is, in fact, a good thing. Liberal judges can always find ways to deny a FISA order, even under S. 113, if they are determined to do so. For instance, a judge could simply decide there is no probable cause showing that an individual is engaged in international terrorism. That is a requirement in both S. 113 and our amendment. The bottom line is that we can and should preserve the foreign power requirement of FISA without jeopardizing our security. Under either approach, the Government will be able to get FISA orders against international terrorists, even if the Government cannot meet the foreign power requirement. Bottom line, again: The only difference between the two approaches is that our amendment preserves some limited discretion so the FISA court could stop the Government from overreaching against those individuals who have no connection to a foreign conspiracy. Let me say, if they have no connection to a foreign conspiracy, you can get the title III criminal warrant. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and, therefore, support the underlying purposes of FISA. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Frist, Daschle, Stevens, and Kennedy, to cosponsor a resolution honoring a very distinguished American who I am proud to call my very dear friend--Mr. James Johnson. Minnesota has produced some extraordinary political individuals-- Harold Stassen, Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy and Walter Mondale, among others. But among those who have never sought public office, but are still devoted to public policy and the power of good government, Jim Johnson stands out. Born in the small town of Benson, Jim Johnson was exposed at an early age to Minnesota politics, where his father, Alfred Ingvald, was a leading figure in the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, serving for 2 years as speaker of the Minnesota House. A natural politician, Jim was elected student body president at the University of Minnesota when only a sophomore, then went to Africa on a grant from the Ford Foundation, and earned a masters degree from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Government. After serving on his Senate staff, Jim served as Executive Assistant to Vice President Walter Mondale and served as campaign director of the Vice President's 1984 bid for the White House. In the private sector, Jim founded Public Strategies, with Richard Holbrooke, and later served as a managing director at Lehman Brothers. Most notably, he also served as chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae, with the goal of allowing more Americans to fulfill their dreams of home ownership, and then as the chairman of the Kennedy Center. For the last 7 years, Jim Johnson has done a remarkable job at the center. During his tenure, Congress approved a $650 million construction project that will include two new buildings and a large plaza, to better connect the center with the rest of the city. He has made the center more accessible to the public, thanks to the free 6 p.m. performances that are held every day. And who could forget last year's superb tribute to the America master, Stephen Sondheim? At the same time, the Kennedy Center Awards have become nationally recognized and broadcast on prime time TV. Not only has Jim Johnson worked tirelessly on behalf of the Kennedy Center, he has also been one of the center's most generous benefactors. There is an old story about Jim Johnson, when he and former President Clinton were in their mid 20s and trying to gain their footing in the political arena. What was very clear to everyone who knew the two of them back then: both had a real shot of becoming President of the United States. Well, Jim Johnson never took the path of elected office. But he went on to serve our Nation with great distinction, in the public and the private sector, and he still has so much left to give. Wherever he goes and whatever he does, Jim Johnson will surely leave an indelible mark. His wife Maxine and their son Alfred are immensely proud of this extraordinary man, just as I consider myself so very fortunate to call him my friend.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Chuck Schumer, Lincoln Chafee, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Jim Jeffords, and Edward Kennedy that would permanently reauthorize the assault weapons ban and close the clip-importation loophole. Military-style assault weapons simply have no place on America's streets. But if Congress fails to act, the current ban will expire next year. This would be a terrible mistake. This is why Congress must reauthorize the ban and close the high- capacity clip importation loophole so that we can help keep America's streets safe from the violence produced by assault weapons. Almost 10 years ago on July 1, 1993 Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street in San Francisco carrying two high-capacity TEC-9 assault pistols. Within minutes, he had murdered eight people, and six others were wounded. This tragedy shook San Francisco and the entire nation. We saw with absolute clarity the destruction that could be inflicted with these military-style assault weapons. Navegar's advertising for the TEC-9 touted the gun as being for `paramilitary' use and `resistant to fingerprints,' with a `military non-glare finish,' a `military blowback system,' and `combat-type' sights. Guns like these are the weapons of choice to commit crimes. They are the weapons of choice for drive-by shooters, criminals going into a major criminal event, and malcontents who are seeking to do the maximum damage possible in the shortest amount of time. That's what makes them so dangerous because they have light triggers, you can spray fire them, you can hold them with two hands, and you don't really need to aim. They are not weapons of choice for hunting or defensive purposes. In the aftermath of 101 California and countless other shootings, I decided to do something that no one had succeeded in doing before: to ban the manufacture and importation of military style assault weapons. I authored the bill in the Senate, and Senator Schumer authored it in the House of Representatives. I remember all the late night calls I got and all the friends who took me aside and said to me: ``Don't do it. The gunners are too powerful. You'll never ever win.'' Well, we did win. We passed the first-ever ban on assault weapons, and since September 13, 1994, it has been illegal to manufacture and import military-style assault weapons. The hope of the bill has been to drive down the supply of these weapons and make them more expensive to obtain. And in the years following the enactment of the ban, crimes using assault weapons were reduced dramatically. In 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes; By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent--a dramatic drop; and by November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent. These are dramatic results, which show that the Assault Weapons ban has worked. We have had trouble getting updated statistics from this Justice Department, but it is clear that after we banned these guns, criminals used them less frequently in crime. Unfortunately, to get the bill passed in 1994, we had to agree to a ten-year sunset in the bill--and this is why we are here today. If we do not re-authorize the 1994 assault weapons ban this Congress, it will expire on September 13, 2004. That means that at the end of next year, manufacturers could once again begin making AK-47s, TEC-9s, and other banned guns that have but one purpose--to kill other human beings. We are here today because we believe that this would be a terrible mistake--with deadly consequences for thousands of Americans each year. So today we will introduce legislation to do two simple things. First, the legislation would reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban by striking the sunset date from the original law. This would ban the manufacture of 19 types of common military style assault weapons--for all time. It would ban an additional group of these assault weapons that have been banned by characteristic for 8 years. It would protect some 670 hunting and other recreational rifles for use by law-abiding citizens. And it would preserve the right of police officers and other law enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi- automatic assault weapons--helping to prevent instances when law enforcement agents are outgunned by perpetrators. We certainly would like a stronger bill that would tighten the ban-- based on our 10 years of experience of what the gun companies have done to get around the bill. But unfortunately there is not the support for that right now. If the support becomes evident, then we may amend the bill at a later date. Second, the legislation would close a loophole in the 1994 law, which prohibits the domestic manufacture of high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue sending them to this country by the millions. A measure that would have closed this loophole passed the House and Senate in 1999 by wide margins, but got bottled up in a larger conference due to an unrelated provision. The result: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has approved the importation of almost 50 million high capacity ammunition magazines from some 50 countries since 1994. It is these large clips, drums, and strips that allow lone gunmen, or small groups of teenagers, to inflict so much damage in such a small amount of time. We must close this loophole now. The good news: President Bush has indicated that he supports each of these provisions. During the 2000 Presidential Campaign, President Bush indicated that he supported both reauthorization of the assault weapons ban and closing the clip importation loophole. And just a few weeks ago, President Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated his support for reauthorizing the ban when he said: ``The President supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.'' It is therefore our hope that the President will work with us to see this bill passed. We welcome the President's support and look forward to working with him to gain swift passage of this legislation. One of the best examples of the damage that assault weapons can inflict is the massacre in Littleton, Colorado. On April 24, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used a TEC DC-9 semi-automatic pistol to attack the students and teachers of Columbine High School. They used this weapon to take the lives of 13 innocents, 12 students and 1 teacher, and injured dozens more mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. I do not believe that the 2nd Amendment protects military assault weapons. The Constitution is not an umbrella for mayhem. The Bill of Rights is not a guarantor of violence. Congress has passed this legislation once--it is time to pass the assault weapons ban again. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Chuck Schumer, Lincoln Chafee, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Jim Jeffords, and Edward Kennedy that would permanently reauthorize the assault weapons ban and close the clip-importation loophole. Military-style assault weapons simply have no place on America's streets. But if Congress fails to act, the current ban will expire next year. This would be a terrible mistake. This is why Congress must reauthorize the ban and close the high- capacity clip importation loophole so that we can help keep America's streets safe from the violence produced by assault weapons. Almost 10 years ago on July 1, 1993 Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street in San Francisco carrying two high-capacity TEC-9 assault pistols. Within minutes, he had murdered eight people, and six others were wounded. This tragedy shook San Francisco and the entire nation. We saw with absolute clarity the destruction that could be inflicted with these military-style assault weapons. Navegar's advertising for the TEC-9 touted the gun as being for `paramilitary' use and `resistant to fingerprints,' with a `military non-glare finish,' a `military blowback system,' and `combat-type' sights. Guns like these are the weapons of choice to commit crimes. They are the weapons of choice for drive-by shooters, criminals going into a major criminal event, and malcontents who are seeking to do the maximum damage possible in the shortest amount of time. That's what makes them so dangerous because they have light triggers, you can spray fire them, you can hold them with two hands, and you don't really need to aim. They are not weapons of choice for hunting or defensive purposes. In the aftermath of 101 California and countless other shootings, I decided to do something that no one had succeeded in doing before: to ban the manufacture and importation of military style assault weapons. I authored the bill in the Senate, and Senator Schumer authored it in the House of Representatives. I remember all the late night calls I got and all the friends who took me aside and said to me: ``Don't do it. The gunners are too powerful. You'll never ever win.'' Well, we did win. We passed the first-ever ban on assault weapons, and since September 13, 1994, it has been illegal to manufacture and import military-style assault weapons. The hope of the bill has been to drive down the supply of these weapons and make them more expensive to obtain. And in the years following the enactment of the ban, crimes using assault weapons were reduced dramatically. In 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes; By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent--a dramatic drop; and by November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent. These are dramatic results, which show that the Assault Weapons ban has worked. We have had trouble getting updated statistics from this Justice Department, but it is clear that after we banned these guns, criminals used them less frequently in crime. Unfortunately, to get the bill passed in 1994, we had to agree to a ten-year sunset in the bill--and this is why we are here today. If we do not re-authorize the 1994 assault weapons ban this Congress, it will expire on September 13, 2004. That means that at the end of next year, manufacturers could once again begin making AK-47s, TEC-9s, and other banned guns that have but one purpose--to kill other human beings. We are here today because we believe that this would be a terrible mistake--with deadly consequences for thousands of Americans each year. So today we will introduce legislation to do two simple things. First, the legislation would reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban by striking the sunset date from the original law. This would ban the manufacture of 19 types of common military style assault weapons--for all time. It would ban an additional group of these assault weapons that have been banned by characteristic for 8 years. It would protect some 670 hunting and other recreational rifles for use by law-abiding citizens. And it would preserve the right of police officers and other law enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi- automatic assault weapons--helping to prevent instances when law enforcement agents are outgunned by perpetrators. We certainly would like a stronger bill that would tighten the ban-- based on our 10 years of experience of what the gun companies have done to get around the bill. But unfortunately there is not the support for that right now. If the support becomes evident, then we may amend the bill at a later date. Second, the legislation would close a loophole in the 1994 law, which prohibits the domestic manufacture of high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue sending them to this country by the millions. A measure that would have closed this loophole passed the House and Senate in 1999 by wide margins, but got bottled up in a larger conference due to an unrelated provision. The result: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has approved the importation of almost 50 million high capacity ammunition magazines from some 50 countries since 1994. It is these large clips, drums, and strips that allow lone gunmen, or small groups of teenagers, to inflict so much damage in such a small amount of time. We must close this loophole now. The good news: President Bush has indicated that he supports each of these provisions. During the 2000 Presidential Campaign, President Bush indicated that he supported both reauthorization of the assault weapons ban and closing the clip importation loophole. And just a few weeks ago, President Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated his support for reauthorizing the ban when he said: ``The President supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.'' It is therefore our hope that the President will work with us to see this bill passed. We welcome the President's support and look forward to working with him to gain swift passage of this legislation. One of the best examples of the damage that assault weapons can inflict is the massacre in Littleton, Colorado. On April 24, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used a TEC DC-9 semi-automatic pistol to attack the students and teachers of Columbine High School. They used this weapon to take the lives of 13 innocents, 12 students and 1 teacher, and injured dozens more mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. I do not believe that the 2nd Amendment protects military assault weapons. The Constitution is not an umbrella for mayhem. The Bill of Rights is not a guarantor of violence. Congress has passed this legislation once--it is time to pass the assault weapons ban again. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the efforts of the more than 60,000 men, women, and children who will be meeting at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum at Exposition Park on Saturday, May 10, 2003, to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Revlon Run/Walk and to raise funds for women's cancers. The largest 5K event in the Nation, the Revlon Run/Walk, presented by the Entertainment Industry Foundation, EFT, and cochaired by Ellen Barkin, Ronald O. Perelman and Lilly Tartikoff, will raise funds to target research that will contribute to the development of important new therapies, such as Herceptin to treat breast cancer, the first in the wave of new targeted cancer treatments. To date, the Revlon Run/Walk in Los Angeles and New York has raised more than $27 million since its beginning in Los Angeles a decade ago. The Revlon Run/Walk in Los Angeles will be hosted by Debra Messing and Billy Crystal along with Revlon spokespersons Karen Duffy and Jaime King. The Los Angeles area beneficiaries for 2003 include: The Revlon/UCLA Women's Cancer Research Program, National Women's Cancer Research Alliance (NWCRA), the Wellness Community, WIN Against Breast Cancer, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and Hospital Ovarian & Breast Cancer Program, the UCLA Digital Mammography Program, T.H.E., The Help Everyone, Clinic, Inc., Los Angeles Breast Cancer Alliance, John Wayne Cancer Institute, Breast Cancer Research Program, Women of Color Breast Cancer Survivors Support Program, Team Survivor Los Angeles, Providence Saint Joseph Foundation, Art of Healing--Women's Health, Gilda Radner Ovarian and Breast Cancer Detection Program at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Asian Pacific Health Care Venture, Inc. (ACPHCV), and weSpark. Today, 1 in 27 American women will die of breast cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, every 2.5 minutes a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, every 13 minutes a woman dies of breast cancer, and this year alone 54,100 women will lose their lives to breast and ovarian cancer. For a woman with ovarian cancer today, there is still no method of early detection. In my home State of California, the American Cancer Society is predicting this year that more than 26,300 women will be diagnosed with breast and other women cancers and more than 5,500 grandmothers, mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, cousins, and friends will die. The facts serve as a reminder that there is still so much to be done. Mammograms are a proven method of early detection. Unfortunately a large portion of women are not getting screened. The continuing fight requires many levels of commitment and I want to congratulate all those individuals involved in this worthwhile event as they celebrate both Mother's Day and the 10-year anniversary of the Revlon Run/Walk. The thousands running in Los Angeles represent the millions hoping for an end to cancer. I, too, look forward to a day without cancer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the evidence of fraud and abuse submitted is really quite extraordinary. Yet this energy bill doesn't prevent the type of gaming that went on during the energy crisis. The bill only bans one type of specific manipulation--wash trades in the electricity market--but it does not address the natural gas market, nor does it prevent other forms of fraud and manipulation that took place in California and were detailed in memos released by Enron--``Fat Boy,'' ``Ricochet,'' ``Death Star,'' and ``Get Shorty.'' Furthermore, I am concerned that at this time of great crisis in the energy industry, this energy legislation rolls back the Public Utility Holding Company Act--PUCHA--without giving FERC the ability to review mergers and acquisitions in the energy sector. I will support an amendment to be offered by Senator Bingaman on this issue to ensure the consumer protections granted by PUCHA are not repealed. I am also disappointed that this bill does not increased automobile fuel efficiency to reduce our consumption of oil. The single most effective way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to equalize the fuel economy of SUVs and light trucks with that of passenger cars. Senator Olympia Snowe and I introduced bipartisan legislation in January to close the SUV Loophole and since that time 16 other Senators have signed onto our bill. Closing the SUV loophole would: Save the U.S. 1 million barrels of oil a day and reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports by 10 percent; prevent about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming--from entering the atmosphere each year; and save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs. Corporate Average Fuel Economy--CAFE--standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road--they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger cars. Today, our roads look much different--SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States. As a result, the overall fuel economy of our nation's fleet is the lowest it has been in two decades--because fuel economy standards for these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles. Rather than increasing fuel economy, however, this energy bill makes it more difficult for the Department of Transportation to increase CAFE standards in the future by including a new list of criteria the Department must consider when revising standards. We need to be responsible and increase fuel efficiency, not create more barriers to increase CAFE standards. I believe a comprehensive energy policy can promote the development of new energy supplies while protecting our most precious natural areas. Yet this energy bill requires an inventory of all oil and gas resources under the Outer Continental Shelf. This inventory is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine long-standing and bipartisan moratorium protection. Areas off the West and East Coasts are currently off limits to drilling, and we do not want that to change. Even if we ignore the implications of this study on moratorium areas, the inventory itself threatens precious coastal resources with invasive technologies. The coastal states have made it clear that they oppose oil development in these areas, and I believe the States' views should be respected. I strongly believe that a comprehensive energy bill cannot ignore global climate change, yet this bill does nothing to decrease global warming. The International Panel on Climate Change estimates that the Earth's average temperature could rise by as much as 10 degrees in the next 100 years--the most rapid change in 10,000 years. This would have a major effect on our way of life. It would melt the polar ice caps, decimate our coastal cities, and cause global climate change. We are already seeing the effects of warming. In November, the Los Angeles Times published an article about the vanishing glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana. Over a century ago, 150 of these magnificent glaciers could be seen on the high cliffs and jagged peaks of the surrounding mountains of the park. Today, there are only 35. And these 35 glaciers that remain today are disintegrating so quickly that scientists estimate the park will have no glaciers in 30 years. This melting seen in Glacier National Park can also be seen around the world, from the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania to the ice fields beneath Mt. Everest in the Himalayas. Experts also predict that glaciers in the high Andes, the Swiss Alps, and even Iceland could disappear in coming decades as well. These dwindling glaciers offer the clearest and most visible sign of climate change in America and the rest of the world. Yet the administration has walked away from the negotiating table for the Kyoto Protocol. This is a big mistake. The United States is now the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's energy. We should be a leader when it comes to combating global warming. I strongly believe that we can do more to encourage the development of renewable power. Solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass are generating electricity for homes and businesses nationwide and we need an energy policy that not only provides tax incentives for their continued development, but also requires their use. I strongly believe it is in the public interest for our nation to stop subsidizing costly nuclear plants and require greater development of renewable resources. However, this energy bill does not include a Renewable Portfolio Standard to require the use of a certain percentage of energy to be generated from renewable resources. I support such a standard and believe it should be part of our energy policy. Unfortunately the energy bill currently has an over-reliance on promoting traditional energy resources. Take the nuclear power section of the bill for example. The energy bill provides a new subsidy program to provide loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of financial assistance to subsidize the construction of new nuclear plants. These subsidies will be allowed to cover up to half the cost of developing and constructing a nuclear power plant, including any costs resulting from licensing and regulatory delays. Since nuclear power plants cost approximately $6 billion to build, these subsidies could inflict a tremendous burden on the taxpayer. For these reasons I voted against this energy bill in the Senate Energy Committee. I look forward to the opportunity to improve it on the Floor. I strongly believe our nation needs an energy policy that will protect consumers, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and promote new energy development while protecting our environment. If our energy legislation cannot accomplish these objectives it will be an unbalanced and incomplete energy policy. Thank you and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to make a few comments as a member of the Energy Committee on the energy bill that is on the floor and which will be subject to amendment tomorrow morning. I believe the ethanol amendment will be taken up. There is an overarching possibility in this energy bill. It can provide the opportunity to properly fix the badly broken energy market, to reduce our consumption of oil, and to increase energy production while protecting our environment and addressing climate change. But at this point, the Energy Policy Act of 2003 is missing much of what is needed for a balanced, comprehensive energy policy for this Nation. I voted against the bill in the Energy Committee because of what is missing. I look forward to the opportunity to amend this legislation. First, I believe the bill needs stronger consumer protection to fix our broken energy market and to prevent another energy crisis like the one we experienced in the West. Second, we must increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles to reduce the amount of oil we consume, to lessen the amount of carbon dioxide, the No. 1 greenhouse gas released into our atmosphere, and to save families and businesses money at the pump. Third, we must increase our energy production while protecting our environment. This means not infringing on environmentally sensitive areas such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge or the water off the California and Florida coasts. Fourth, we should address global warming and establish plans to combat climate change. Fifth, we must encourage the development of new renewable power from solar, from wind, and from geothermal resources instead of continuing to subsidize traditional production from nuclear power, for example. Three years ago this month, California's energy market began to spiral out of control. In May of 2000, families and businesses in San Diego saw their energy bill soar. The Western energy crisis forced every family and business to pay for more energy. The crisis forced the State of California into a severe budget shortfall. It forced the State's largest utility into bankruptcy and nearly bankrupted the second largest utility. Now, 3 years and $45 billion in cost later, we have learned how the energy market in California was gamed and abused. In March, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued the ``Final Report on Price Manipulation in Western Markets which confirmed that there was widespread and pervasive fraud and manipulation during the Western energy crisis. The abuse of our energy market was so pervasive and unlawful. Yet this energy bill does not go far enough to prevent another Western energy crisis and to curb illegal Enron-type manipulation. Remember, this type of fraud and abuse was not limited to just Enron. There was fraud and abuse across the board, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. One of the best examples of this illegal behavior is demonstrated by the transcript from Reliant Energy that revealed how their traders intentionally withheld power from the California market in an attempt to increase prices. This is one of the most egregious examples of manipulation, and it is clear and convincing evidence of coordinated schemes to defraud consumers. Let me read one part of the transcript to demonstrate the greed behind the market abuse by Reliant and its traders. On June 20, 2000, two Reliant employees had the following conversation that revealed the company withheld power from the California market to drive prices up. Reliant Operations Manager 1: I don't necessarily foresee those units being run the remainder of this week. In fact you will probably see, in fact I know, tomorrow we have all the units at Coolwater off. The Coolwater plant is a 526 megawatt plant. Reliant Plant Operator 2: Really? Reliant Operations Manager 1: Potentially. Even number four. More due to some market manipulation attempts on our part. And so, on number four it probably wouldn't last long. It would probably be back on the next day, if not the day after that. Trying to uh. . . Reliant Plant Operator 2: Trying to shorten supply, uh? That way the price on demand goes up. Reliant Operations Manager 1: Well, we'll see. Reliant Plant Operator 2: I can understand. That's cool. Reliant Operations Manager 1: We've got some term positions that, you know, that would benefit. Six months after this incident, as the Senate Energy Committee was attempting to get to the bottom of why energy prices were soaring in the West, the president and CEO of Reliant testified before Congress that the State of California ``has focused on an inaccurate perception of market manipulation.'' Reliant's president and CEO went on to say, ``We are proud of our contributions to keep generation running to try to meet the demand for power in California. Reliant Energy's plant and technical staffs have worked hard to maximize the performance of our generation.'' These transcripts prove otherwise and reveal the truth about market manipulation in the energy sector. Yet FERC refused to find and consider all evidence of fraud and manipulation and the State of California was forced to take the commission to court to ensure FERC would carry out its public duty to fully investigate the western energy crisis and punish wrongdoing. Only when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled FERC had to allow the California parties to collect and submit evidence did we find more instances of pervasive illegal behavior. After a 100-day discovery period that ended March 3, 2003, the State of California, the California attorney general's office, and the state's largest utilities filed over 3,000 pages of evidence at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to show how fraud and manipulation was pervasive throughout the western energy crisis of 2000-2001. The market abuse was not limited to a few rogue traders at one firm, but was a widespread series of schemes perpetuated by many employees across most companies that supplied and traded in the West. During their discovery period, the ``California parties'' found the following information: Details on new specific incidents when energy companies intentionally held their plants offline to drive prices up during 2000 and 2001; new transcripts of conversations between energy company employees revealing an intent to defraud and manipulate the California market; new evidence of document destruction by energy companies to hide details of their behavior in the western energy market; and new evidence laying out possible anti-trust violations by energy companies. I ask unaminous consent that a copy of the report my office issued when the ``Protective Order'' was lifted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Ohio State Supreme Court Justice Deborah Cook for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I intend to vote yes on her nomination because I believe that she has a proper understanding of the role of the judiciary. Unlike some other nominees who have come before the Senate, Justice Cook's opinions demonstrate a recognition that a judge's proper role is to interpret statutes in a way that reflects the legislature's intent. She does not try to legislate from the bench or inject her views into her interpretations of a statute. I believe that, based on her past record, she will be an appellate judge who will read statutes faithfully and carefully and decide cases on her best understanding of what the law says as opposed to ruling based on her personal views. Let me give a couple of examples of Justice Cook's views on judicial restraint from her opinions. In a dissent from an Ohio Supreme Court decision overturning the State's system of funding public education, Cook noted: In short, the determination of what constitutes minimum levels of educational opportunity to be provided to Ohio's children is committed by the Ohio Constitution to legitimate policy makers--not the courts, whose proper role is interpretation and application of law. Similarly, Cook defended the role of the legislature in a dissent from an Ohio Supreme Court ruling that found a new ``employment intentional tort'' statute to be unconstitutional. The majority opinion views the issue presented by this case as a question of ``what is right?'', but I believe the true question is ``who decides what is right?'' The General Assembly passed this legislation as part of its policy-making function, a function inherent in the legislative power. With this decision, however the majority usurps the legislative power. Senator DeWine, a strong supporter of Justice Cook, has called her an ``old-fashioned'' conservative, and I think that is a very accurate description. I certainly don't agree with all of Justice Cook's opinions, and take seriously the concerns raised by those who feel she tends to side with big corporations and employers in lawsuits. I also am concerned about some of her opinions arguing for the overturning of jury verdicts. In weighing the totality of these issues, however, I believe that Justice Cook will properly exercise the judicial office. Most importantly, I believe she will not be an activist judge who will try to legislate from the bench.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a very dear friend and colleague of mine, Henry Berman, who died on Tuesday, April 27. He was just 92 years old. He was a true Renaissance man--a man who loved life and loved people. Indeed, there was not a sweeter, gentler, or more generous person on earth than Henry Berman. Born in 1910, in New Haven, CT, Henry made his way to San Francisco in the early 1930s. During the Great Depression he worked as laborer, then sold butter and eggs, until he settled down as a consultant for Joseph Seagrams & Sons, where he worked for 56 years. Long active in San Francisco politics and a dedicated philanthropist, I was lucky enough to have Henry serve as the Chairman of the Fire Commission during my tenure as mayor. I was also fortunate enough to have him serve as my campaign treasurer, in 1992, when I first ran for the United States Senate. I never had a more loyal supporter. He served the city of San Francisco up until the very end of his life, when he was the president of the airport commission. According to his son Ron, Henry was on the phone with airport leaders even during the last days of his illness. That's classic Henry for you: if he could walk, sure enough he would be there. He was truly one of a kind. He was also involved in a wide range of civic and charitable work, including the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith, the American Jewish Committee, Meals on Wheels and ``Mo's Kitchen,'' which provides daily meals at Glide Memorial Methodist Church in San Francisco. Henry was also an overseer of UC-San Francisco, a trustee of the McLaren School of Business at the University of San Francisco, and a board member of USF's Fromm Institute of Lifelong Learning. When someone lives as long as Henry did--92 long, prosperous, and productive years you can't conceive of the world without them. My heartfelt condolences go out to his wonderful wife Sally, to his sons Ron and Bob, and to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I will miss him greatly, but consider myself so very privileged to have known Henry Berman to be able to call him my loyal colleague and my dear, dear friend.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation introduced by Senators Boxer and Ensign to improve disclosure of stock option grants in company financial statements while, at the same time, delaying the adoption of new accounting standards that could fundamentally distort reported earnings. I believe that at this time of continued economic weakness it is critical that we take action to both increase transparency and improve corporate governance, without which we cannot hope to restore investor confidence. The Broad-Based Stock Option Plan Transparency Act would increase the transparency of stock option grants at all levels of public companies, particularly executive compensation, and would provide investors with additional tools to make investment decisions. Increased disclosure provisions in the bill include: expanded disclosure of the dilutive effect of employee stock options on reported earnings per share; a ``plain English'' discussion of share value dilution, which would allow individual investors to understand the impact of options grants on their investment; more prominent placement and increased comparability of stock option-related footnotes; and a summary of stock options granted to the 5 most highly compensated executives of the company. These provisions help us fulfill the goal of greater transparency in our markets and improved corporate governance. With passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting reform legislation last summer, we took a major step in that direction, and I believe this bill adds to those achievements. If individual investors do not feel comfortable with the information reported by public companies or the advice given by banks and other major players in our financial markets, they will not feel comfortable making new investments and our markets are unlikely to recover. In addition to requiring new disclosure of the impact of employee stock options on a company's earnings per share, this bill also requires the SEC to monitor the effectiveness of increased disclosure requirements for 3 years. The bill also specifies that the SEC must examine the impact of broad-based stock option plans on worker productivity and the performance of the firms which use such plans. As anyone who has spent time in Silicon Valley can attest, the phenomenal achievements of high tech companies in California and across the country would not have been possible without employee stock options. Stock options give employees a stake in the success of their company and create a degree of employee loyalty, productivity, and achievement that simply would not be possible if cash were the only form of compensation available. Moreover, it has allowed start-ups that are cash-poor to hire and retain talent that might otherwise have been available only to established firms. A mandatory expensing standard will sharply limit the use of stock options, particularly for rank and file workers, and will slow our economic recovery. Without a strong high tech sector developing new technologies and bringing new products to market, we cannot hope to return to the robust economic growth of the last decade. Moreover, mandatory expensing could actually decrease transparency for the average investor. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has indicated it will implement such a rule within the next year, but has not come up with an adequate means of valuing those options for expensing purposes. The binomial pricing model currently used to value short-term derivatives, also known as Black/Scholes, does not work with the types of long-term, restricted options packages granted to employees. Without an accurate valuation methodology, we risk giving investors a much less accurate picture of a company's financial health than they would have otherwise. I have spoken with the chief executive officers of a number of companies in my state, including John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel, and Richard Kovacevich, CEO of Wells Fargo. Each one of those corporate leaders has told me that a mandatory expensing standard would lead them to sharply limit the number of options he grants to his employees. They also told me that it would lead them cut back on hiring and possibly send more jobs abroad. I found those comments disturbing, and they should give us pause and compel us to act prudently. That is why we should support further study of the accounting treatment of stock options, during which period no new accounting rules pertaining tot stock options could be adopted. I would like to describe briefly the impact of employee stock options on the value of an investor's holdings in the company that granted the option. In order for employee stock options not to be counted as an expense, they must be set at or above the average closing price of the company's stock during a fixed period. They are also generally restricted, and usually cannot be exercised for several years after their grant date. Should the value of the underlying shares fall during the life of the option, the options are underwater and are effectively worthless. Should the share price increase, however, the exercise of those options creates no cash charge to the company whatsoever. Instead, it increases the total number of shares outstanding. To take one concrete example, Cisco Systems recently reported approximately 7.3 billion shares outstanding in their latest annual report. They also reported approximately 600 million options to purchase shares that were ``in the money,'' or had an exercise price below the current share price. If all those options were exercised, and no shares were repurchased, each share would be entitled to approximately 8 percent less in dividends than before. In fact, the actual dilution would likely be somewhat less. If options are expensed, however, the impact on Cisco's bottom line would be dramatic, despite the fact that their only tangible impact is on the number of shares outstanding. Had Cisco expensed their stock options for the 2001 fiscal year, their reported profits would have been 171 percent lower. A roughly $1 billion profit would instead have been a nearly $1 billion loss. Yet the actual value of those options now is almost nil. They were all granted at exercise prices well above the current share price, and may never be exercised. Options are not a cash expense and represent no tangible exchange of assets. They are a form of incentive pay that may ultimately be worthless. In short, they are nothing like a cash salary. The legislation introduced by Senators Boxer and Ensign recognizes the need for further study, but does not place an indefinite moratorium on FASB action. It is a balanced bill that will help the average investor and ultimately strengthen our financial markets. I urge my colleagues to support the Broad-Based Stock Option Transparency Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation introduced by Senators Boxer and Ensign to improve disclosure of stock option grants in company financial statements while, at the same time, delaying the adoption of new accounting standards that could fundamentally distort reported earnings. I believe that at this time of continued economic weakness it is critical that we take action to both increase transparency and improve corporate governance, without which we cannot hope to restore investor confidence. The Broad-Based Stock Option Plan Transparency Act would increase the transparency of stock option grants at all levels of public companies, particularly executive compensation, and would provide investors with additional tools to make investment decisions. Increased disclosure provisions in the bill include: expanded disclosure of the dilutive effect of employee stock options on reported earnings per share; a ``plain English'' discussion of share value dilution, which would allow individual investors to understand the impact of options grants on their investment; more prominent placement and increased comparability of stock option-related footnotes; and a summary of stock options granted to the 5 most highly compensated executives of the company. These provisions help us fulfill the goal of greater transparency in our markets and improved corporate governance. With passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting reform legislation last summer, we took a major step in that direction, and I believe this bill adds to those achievements. If individual investors do not feel comfortable with the information reported by public companies or the advice given by banks and other major players in our financial markets, they will not feel comfortable making new investments and our markets are unlikely to recover. In addition to requiring new disclosure of the impact of employee stock options on a company's earnings per share, this bill also requires the SEC to monitor the effectiveness of increased disclosure requirements for 3 years. The bill also specifies that the SEC must examine the impact of broad-based stock option plans on worker productivity and the performance of the firms which use such plans. As anyone who has spent time in Silicon Valley can attest, the phenomenal achievements of high tech companies in California and across the country would not have been possible without employee stock options. Stock options give employees a stake in the success of their company and create a degree of employee loyalty, productivity, and achievement that simply would not be possible if cash were the only form of compensation available. Moreover, it has allowed start-ups that are cash-poor to hire and retain talent that might otherwise have been available only to established firms. A mandatory expensing standard will sharply limit the use of stock options, particularly for rank and file workers, and will slow our economic recovery. Without a strong high tech sector developing new technologies and bringing new products to market, we cannot hope to return to the robust economic growth of the last decade. Moreover, mandatory expensing could actually decrease transparency for the average investor. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has indicated it will implement such a rule within the next year, but has not come up with an adequate means of valuing those options for expensing purposes. The binomial pricing model currently used to value short-term derivatives, also known as Black/Scholes, does not work with the types of long-term, restricted options packages granted to employees. Without an accurate valuation methodology, we risk giving investors a much less accurate picture of a company's financial health than they would have otherwise. I have spoken with the chief executive officers of a number of companies in my state, including John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel, and Richard Kovacevich, CEO of Wells Fargo. Each one of those corporate leaders has told me that a mandatory expensing standard would lead them to sharply limit the number of options he grants to his employees. They also told me that it would lead them cut back on hiring and possibly send more jobs abroad. I found those comments disturbing, and they should give us pause and compel us to act prudently. That is why we should support further study of the accounting treatment of stock options, during which period no new accounting rules pertaining tot stock options could be adopted. I would like to describe briefly the impact of employee stock options on the value of an investor's holdings in the company that granted the option. In order for employee stock options not to be counted as an expense, they must be set at or above the average closing price of the company's stock during a fixed period. They are also generally restricted, and usually cannot be exercised for several years after their grant date. Should the value of the underlying shares fall during the life of the option, the options are underwater and are effectively worthless. Should the share price increase, however, the exercise of those options creates no cash charge to the company whatsoever. Instead, it increases the total number of shares outstanding. To take one concrete example, Cisco Systems recently reported approximately 7.3 billion shares outstanding in their latest annual report. They also reported approximately 600 million options to purchase shares that were ``in the money,'' or had an exercise price below the current share price. If all those options were exercised, and no shares were repurchased, each share would be entitled to approximately 8 percent less in dividends than before. In fact, the actual dilution would likely be somewhat less. If options are expensed, however, the impact on Cisco's bottom line would be dramatic, despite the fact that their only tangible impact is on the number of shares outstanding. Had Cisco expensed their stock options for the 2001 fiscal year, their reported profits would have been 171 percent lower. A roughly $1 billion profit would instead have been a nearly $1 billion loss. Yet the actual value of those options now is almost nil. They were all granted at exercise prices well above the current share price, and may never be exercised. Options are not a cash expense and represent no tangible exchange of assets. They are a form of incentive pay that may ultimately be worthless. In short, they are nothing like a cash salary. The legislation introduced by Senators Boxer and Ensign recognizes the need for further study, but does not place an indefinite moratorium on FASB action. It is a balanced bill that will help the average investor and ultimately strengthen our financial markets. I urge my colleagues to support the Broad-Based Stock Option Transparency Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to oncology nurses. May is the ninth annual Oncology Nursing Month. The celebration kicks off on Thursday, May 1, 2003, on Oncology Nursing Day, during the opening ceremonies of the Oncology Nursing Society's 28th Annual Congress in Denver, CO, and continues until May 31, 2003. Oncology Nursing Month recognizes oncology nurses, educates the public about oncology nursing, provides an opportunity for special educational events for oncology nurses, and celebrates the accomplishments of oncology nurses. The Oncology Nursing Society, ONS, is the largest professional oncology group in the United States composed of more than 30,000 nurses and other health professionals. It exists to promote excellence in oncology nursing and the provision of quality care to those individuals affected by cancer. As part of its mission, the society honors and maintains nursing's historical and essential commitment to advocacy for the public good. ONS was founded in 1975, and held its first Annual Congress in 1976. Since the society was established, 218 local chapters have been formed to provide a network for education and peer support at the community level. In my State of California, there are more than 2,515 oncology nurses and health professionals who care for individuals with cancer and their families. In addition, California has 18 local Oncology Nursing Society chapters including the areas of Pacific Grove, Fresno, Brentwood, Lompoc, Simi Valley, Palm Springs, Greater Los Angeles, Redding, Sacramento, Colton, Chico, Lodi, Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Sonoma County, and Lakewood. Over the last 10 years, the setting where treatment for cancer is provided has changed dramatically. An estimated 80 percent of all Americans receive cancer care in community settings including cancer centers, physicians' offices, and hospital outpatient departments. Treatment regimens are as complex, if not more so, than regimens given in the inpatient setting a few short years ago. Oncology nurses are on the frontlines of the provision of quality cancer care for individuals with cancer. Nurses are involved in the care of a cancer patient from the beginning through the end of treatment. Oncology nurses are the frontline providers of care by administering chemotherapy, managing patient therapies and sideeffects, working with insurance companies to ensure that patients receive the appropriate treatment, and providing counseling to patients and family members, in addition to many other daily acts on behalf of cancer patients. With an increasing number of people with cancer needing high quality health care, and an inadequate supply of nurses, our Nation could well be facing a cancer care crisis of serious proportion, with limited access to quality cancer care. I was proud to support the passage of the ``Nurse Reinvestment Act'' in the 107th Congress. This important piece of legislation expanded and implemented programs at the Health Resources Services Administration, HRSA, to address the multiple problems contributing to the nationwide nursing shortage, including the decline in nursing student enrollments, shortage of faculty, and dissatisfaction with nurse workplace environments. I commend the Oncology Nursing Society for all of its hard work to prevent and reduce suffering from cancer and to improve the lives of those 1.3 million Americans who will be diagnosed with cancer in 2003.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, with the dramatic and precipitous fall of many Iraqi cities, including Baghdad, the military conflict in Iraq is all but officially over. Isolated pockets of resistance still exist and there is the looming threat of suicide bombings, as happened last Friday at an ammunitions depot. But we can now proclaim that the barbarous regime of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party has finally come to an end. As the military aspect subsides, the number of casualties--United States, coalition, and Iraqi--is also diminishing. And this, clearly, is wonderful news. Still, regrettably, there have been those over the last few weeks who have made the ultimate sacrifice, some of them with close ties to California. I would like to take a moment to honor these brave and selfless individuals. Marine Cpl Jesus Medellin: On April 7, 21-year-old Jesus ``Marty'' Medellin was killed when an enemy artillery shell struck his vehicle. The second of four boys from a very close family from Fort Worth, TX, Medellin was remembered as a warm and relaxed family man who was active in local church. As soon as he graduated from W.E. Boswell High School, in the year 2000, he went straight to Marine boot camp, having decided to do so when only 12 years old. ``There's no prouder way of losing someone than through serving their country,'' said his father, Freddy Medellin, Sr., who was prevented from joining the military because of physical problems. As part of the 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, First Marine Division, based in Camp Pendleton, CA, Cpl Jesus Medellin died doing what he had always dreamed of doing. Americans everywhere should be as proud of him as his family. Marine Sgt Duane Rios: Remembered as a gentle giant, as a light- hearted person with an infectious laugh, 6-foot-3-inch Duane Rios was killed in combat on the outskirts of Baghdad, on Friday, April 4. He was a squad leader for the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion of the 1st Marine Division, from Camp Pendleton, CA. Raised in Indiana by his grandmother, Rios graduated from Griffith High School in 1996. It was there that he met his future bride, Erica, who, upon hearing of her husband's death, told the San Diego Union Tribune that ``there's no way he'd leave me behind knowing I couldn't take it. . . . He was a great guy, none better. . . . He did his job with pride because it was something that he felt was right.'' She recalled how much they loved the view of the ocean at San Clemente, walking their dog on the beach, and watching the sunset. Her strength, along with her husband's sacrifice, should serve as an inspiration to us all. Marine 1stSgt Edward C. Smith: A 38-year-old native of Chicago, Sgt Edward Smith had served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 20 years, and had served for 4 years as a reserve officer for the police department of Anaheim, CA. His hope was to retire from the Marines and become a full- time police officer. He died in Qatar, of combat injuries sustained in central Iraq, on April 5. A veteran of Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield, Sergeant Smith received many commendations, including the Navy Commendation Medal and two Navy Achievement Medals After graduating from the Palomar Police Academy with the ``Top Cop'' award, Sergeant Smith went on to receive such honors as the Rookie of the Year for the Anaheim Police Department and the Orange County Reserve Police Officer of the Year in 2001. His coworkers in Anaheim remember Edward as a gentleman and a professional. He would send them e-mails and makeshift postcards made from empty MRE containers--one which promised that he would wear his SWAP cap into Baghdad. Sergeant Smith leaves behind his wife Sandy and three young children, Nathan, Ryan, and Shelby. At a news conference held at the Anaheim police department, Ryan, an extraordinarily mature 10-year-old, talked about how their father was always there when they needed help. ``It made me feel so good,'' the boy said. ``He was the best dad you could ever have. I miss him a lot.'' Police Sgt. Rick Martinez, one of 100 colleagues who turned out to support the Smith family, noted that ``we all fell in love with his children. Edward's got to be so proud right now.'' And so America is so very proud of Sergeant Smith. Army Pvt. Devon D. Jones: Army Pvt. Devon Jones left for boot camp just a few weeks after graduating from Lincoln High School, in San Diego, last June. He was just 19 years old. It was only 3 years earlier that, after moving from one San Diego group home to another, the artillery specialist found a foster mother who he called mom. ``I'm honored to talk about him,'' his foster mother Evelyn Houston said. ``He was a strong spirit. He was cool, but compassionate, and always concerned about everyone's well-being.'' He joined the military in order to pay for his education--his goal was to be a writer and a teacher. In a letter he sent to his family last month, Private Jones described his life in the desert. ``Sometimes I just look into the sky at the stars and wonder what you all are doing, and smile. ``Hold on, be patient,'' he concluded, ``and know there is a reason for everything.'' GySgt. Jeffrey Bohr: 39-year-old Marine GySgt. Jeffrey Bohr, who was killed in downtown Baghdad during a 7-hour shootout outside a mosque, had been in the military his entire adult life. He joined the Army fresh of high school in Iowa, where he rode horses and played football, but switched to the Marine Corps 5 years later. A large, broad-shouldered man known for his boundless energy--he could run all day with the younger Marines he commanded--Sergeant Bohr was also quiet and down-to-earth. He lived with his wife Lori in San Clemente, CA, and loved reading history and John Grisham novels and taking his two boxers, Tank and Sea Czar, on 10-mile runs. He was also a diehard Oakland Raiders fan. The last time Sergeant Bohr called Lori was a little over a month ago--he spoke of sandstorms and his belief that they would make good parents. Lori's brother, Craig Clover, called Sergeant Bohr ``a stand-up guy-- do it by the rules. For a friend or family, he'd do anything . . . and he loved the military.'' Marine LCpl Donald Cline Jr.: The same was true with 21 year-old LCpl Donald Cline, Jr., who was listed as missing in action just over 1 month ago, yet the Department of Defense confirmed last week that he had died in combat outside the city of Nasiriyah, in southern Iraq. Born in Sierra Madre, CA, Corporal Cline moved to the town of La Crescenta, where he attended the public schools there until moving to Sparks, NV. It was there that he met his future wife Tina. They had two children together Dakota, 2, and Dylan, who is only 7 months old. Sgt Troy Jenkins: On April 19, in an extraordinary act of heroic selflessness and sacrifice, 25-year-old Sgt Troy Jenkins threw himself on a cluster bomb just before it detonated. As a result, he saved the lives not only of several soldiers in his regiment--the 187th Infantry--but of a 7-year-old Iraqi girl. Raised by his father in Evergreen, AL, Sergeant Jenkins loved roaming the woods, fishing, and music. He joined the Marines just before graduating from high school, in 1995, and later transferred to the Army. He also served in Afghanistan and was planning to leave the service this summer, with the hopes of joining the California Highway Patrol. His reason for wanting to leave the military was so that his wife Amanda and their two children, ages 4 and 2, wouldn't be alone again. Amanda was not surprised by the circumstances of his death. ``He didn't have a selfish bone in his body,'' she said. ``He was always thinking of other people first.'' That was demonstrated, well beyond the call of duty, when he willingly gave his own life to save those of his fellow soldiers and a little girl. 1LT Osbaldo Orozco: 1LT Osbaldo Orozco, just 26 years old, was killed in Tikrit, Iraq, when his Bradley tank, rushing to defend a checkpoint under fire, flipped over as it moved into a position to return fire. Strong, tall and fast, Lieutenant Orozco was a star football player, both at Delano High School, in Delano, CA, and later at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. At college, he was voted ``Linebacker of the Year,'' was named as a Division II All-American, and racked up over 300 tackles. He gave up the opportunity to go pro by choosing to enter the Army. He married his high school sweetheart Mayra in 2001. ``He commanded four Bradleys and he loved it,'' she said. ``He was ready to go and do his job. They all were.'' Lieutenant Orozco is also survived by his parents, Jorge and Reyes Orozco, and five brothers, all over 6 feet tall. Together, they spoke with great pride of Osbaldo's many accomplishments--academic and athletic--and those special leadership qualities that so endeared him to the men he commanded. SFC John W. Marshall: SFC John Winston Marshall was a 30-year veteran of the U.S. Army--a career soldier to the core. He grew up in Los Angeles and kept close family ties in the area. His parents, Odessa and Joseph, live in Sacramento. It is worth noting that both his parents served in World War II, in many ways as trailblazers for African Americans in the armed services. His mother served as a nurse in England and his father as a quartermaster. Because of his 30 years of distinguished service, Sergeant Marshall was eligible to leave the Armed Forces with full retirement benefits and had, in fact, planned to retire last year. Yet he decided to stay because of looming hostilities in Iraq. He was struck and mortally wounded by rocket-propelled grenade launched in an ambush by Iraqi troops. Born in St. Louis, he moved with his family to Los Angeles when he was only 3. An accomplished flute player and a self-taught mechanic who made motor scooters out of lawnmower engines, Sergeant Marshall graduated from Washington High School in 1972 and enlisted in the Army. He went on to serve during the Vietnam war, in South Korea and Germany, and he was a veteran of Operation Desert Storm. At the time of his death, he was commanding a platoon of 40 men from the 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, GA. According to his mother Odessa, ``He wasn't there to pass the time; he was there to do a job.'' His wife Denise told the Los Angeles Times: ``He knew it was dangerous. He didn't run from anything.'' And we should also remember that 50-year-old Sergeant Marshall was as devoted to his family as he was to his country. He leaves behind two sons and a daughter, ages 12, 13, and 14. In one of the last e-mails he sent to his family, he noted: ``I am not a politician or policy maker, just an old soldier.'' Well, we politicians and policymakers must not forget any of these heroes, regardless of their age, rank, religion, sex, or ethnic background. Together, they embody the diversity and consummate professionalism of America's Armed Forces. We all hope and pray for the time when there will be no more casualty lists--when there will no longer be a need to recount stories of courageous men and women who willingly sacrificed their own lives, and irrevocably changed the lives of their families, their spouses, and children, in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq. Clearly, this conflict was a signal military success, and the casualties were kept relatively small. I could not be prouder of the stellar performance of our Armed Forces. But we must never forget to honor every single loss, to pay our deepest respects and offer our deepest sympathies to those left behind, to those whose worlds have been so completely changed--and changed forever.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, as I do every year, to commemorate the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. It has now been 88 years since this tragic event unfolded, and after another year, the historical fact of this atrocity continues to be questioned. April 24, 1915, marked the beginning of the Ottoman Empire's brutal and unconscionable policy of mass murder, directed against men, women and children Armenians. Over 8 years, Armenians faced starvation, deportation, and violent death at the hands of their own government. Before the genocide began, 2.5 million Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire. One and a half million Armenians were killed and another 500,000 were driven from their homes, their property and land confiscated. Many descendants of the survivors of the Armenian Genocide live in the United States, and some actual survivors settled in my own State of California. Overall, half a million Armenian Americans live in California, and I am proud to serve them in the Senate. The strength and importance of their community exemplifies how any group of people can be reborn in the United States. Armenian Americans are at the forefront of the effort to keep the events of the Armenian Genocide in the public eye, but it is the duty of us all, as citizens of a nation that embodies justice, liberty, and freedom not to forget. We must take time each year to acknowledge this act of ethnic cleansing because we cannot afford to forget. The 20th century saw too many genocides, the events in the Ottoman Empire being only the first. In Germany and Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Serbia, millions of people were killed because of their race, ethnicity, or religion. Through these tragedies, too many have remained silent. We must make clear, in the 21st century, that mass murder cannot be tolerated, will not be tolerated. We cannot afford to forget or hide events such as the Armenian Genocide, or another group in another place will experience the same persecution and the same systematic intent to destroy an entire people. This is why we must commemorate this horrific period in the history of the Armenian people each and every year. Let us remember the Armenian Genocide. Let us ensure that those who suffered did not die in vain. Let us ensure that those who survived did not do so to watch the world forget their sufferings. We honor the living by speaking out today.