Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair to the ranking member, yes, that is correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I say through the Chair to the distinguished ranking member, yes, that is correct. I have the rule before me, and that is what it says. The Senator is correct that someone objected, yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, the Senator is correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I will. (Mr. SMITH assumed the chair.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Now, for those of us on this side, that notice--or lack of it--presents a very real problem. Now we knew that Mr. Sutton, Mrs. Cook, and Mr. Roberts had been pending for some time. But the way things actually work is that the real due diligence is done in preparation for the hearing--it is done when the notice comes out. So we truly need time. And I believe the time to study and do our individual due diligence on each nominee would ease a lot of the raw nerve endings and scar tissue, which is now very evident on this committee. Because it is the chairman who schedules matters for a vote, it is inevitably members of the minority party who most often need this extra time. As a result, this holdover rule is a rule that is viewed as a protection of minority rights in the Judiciary Committee. After all, a chairman does not need to hold over a bill. If he doesn't want the committee to consider an issue, he can simply refuse to add the issue to the agenda, or he can pull it off the agenda, if necessary. Many Clinton nominees suffered this fate, and Members have made that clear, I think, time after time in the past couple of weeks. In any event, this rule has always been interpreted to mean that if a Senator asked for a matter to be held over, the earliest it would come up again was in 1 week. That week comprises 7 days from the meeting at which the rule is invoked. Now, we have an exchange from 24 years ago between Senators Thurmond and Kennedy about this rule. I want to read from the transcript of that Judiciary Committee meeting that occurred on January 24, 1979. Let me quote from Senator Thurmond: There is one other matter. We have a custom, I guess since the committee was founded, that any Senator can carry over any matter for 1 week, any nomination for 1 week. I assume there is no objection to continuing that. Chairman Kennedy: I think that is a reasonable request. I think that if it is on a Tuesday to a Tuesday--why don't we just have it on a Tuesday to a Tuesday, so it is 7 days? Seven days, Mr. President. Now, in my 10 years on the Judiciary Committee, this rule has always been interpreted to mean 7 days. Any matter held over must be held over for 7 days, or until the next markup, whichever occurs later. Obviously, there have been many occasions where a chairman of a committee would have preferred to schedule another markup immediately to move a nominee or a bill forward. After all, a chairman does not schedule a matter for consideration unless he or she is ready to move forward. But regardless of the will of the chairman to move more quickly, there has always been a recognition that rules are rules, and this one has always been followed--until this year. At the Judiciary Committee markup on Miguel Estrada several weeks ago, the chairman of the committee attempted to interpret the 1-week rule as allowing an issue to be held over for just 6 days rather than 7. Essentially, he decided to interpret 1 week as being 6 days. Now, before I go into this further, let me say that Senator Hatch is one of my dearest friends in the Senate. He is a fair chairman. I have watched him for a long time. We have worked together on many important issues for the past 10 years. I hold him in the very highest regard. Even on the issue of judicial nominations, I know he did his very best in a very difficult position over the years, when President Clinton was President, to balance the strong will of many of his own caucus against his desire to be fair to President Clinton's judicial nominees, and I believe that very strongly. If anything, this is an indication of how raw nerve endings really are. That is all at this point in time. I certainly understand how any chairman might be frustrated by some of us and by perhaps all of us who might attempt to thwart his timetable. But this frustration, again, should not be allowed to manifest itself in circumvention of a clear, defined, and decades-old committee rule. If we allow 1 week to become 6 days, it becomes an hour tomorrow, maybe cloture only requires 20 rather than 60 votes or 40 percent constitute a majority. This is a bit of an exaggeration. As a matter of fact, it is a major exaggeration, but the Senate and its committees have rules for a reason, and we really cannot function if we do not follow them. When this 6-day week concept was verbalized, our ranking member, Senator Leahy, made it clear that 6 days is not a week. The minority would allow the rule to be waived and a markup to occur in 6 days as a matter of cooperation. And so we waived the rule, partially to avoid a confrontation over this interpretation of the longstanding 7-day rule. But although we avoided a crisis that week, the 6-day concept was sort of a foreshadowing of what now seems to be increasingly a plan to ignore committee rules and move forward over the objections of the minority, and people feel very strongly about that. Last week, we saw this plan come to fruition as two nominees were moved out of the Judiciary Committee over the strong objections of members who wished to continue debate, and despite the clear invocation of a decades-old rule, protecting the right of the minority to continue to debate until at least one of their own agrees it is time to vote. Senator Daschle spoke on this issue last week, and I want to expand briefly on his comments. The judiciary rule in question contains the following language: The chairman shall entertain a nondebatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote. If there is objection to bringing the matter to a vote without further debate, a rollcall vote of the committee shall be taken and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes, with 10 votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority. What does this rule mean? Over the last few decades, it has clearly meant that unless at least one member of the minority agrees to cut off debate and move straight to a vote, no vote can occur. This is what happened and what came up last Thursday. This is one of the only protections the minority has in our committee. Without it, there could conceivably never be a debate at all. A chairman could convene a markup, demand a vote, and the entire process would take 2 minutes. That is one of the reasons we feel so strongly about this particular rule. We believe this is not how the Judiciary Committee should function, and it is contrary to the rules of the committee. As I understand it, this rule was first instituted in 1979, again, and it has been followed ever since by all of our chairmen. I believe only two committees have something like it--Finance and Judiciary. The reason for it, as I understand it, goes back to Senator Kennedy's days as chair, when it was determined they didn't want to be like other committees, where with Appropriations you will often have a committee in the majority just go off on its own, mark up something, and everybody is forced to accept it. Let me give you an instance. During the markup of Bill Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, there was some fear on our side that Republicans who had the votes to defeat the nomination would move directly to a vote and prevent any debate on the issue at the markup. Democrats, on the other hand, wanted the chance to explain their position and maybe even change some minds on the other side. During that markup, there was significant discussion about what rule IV, the rule about cutting off debate, really means. At one point, it is interesting to note, Chairman Hatch himself commented that: At the appropriate time, I will move to proceed to a vote on the Lee nomination. I assume there will be no objection. It seems to me that he deserves a vote. People deserve to know where we stand on this issue. Then we will, pursuant to rule IV, vote on whether to bring the Lee nomination to a vote. In order to vote on the nomination, we need at least one Democrat to vote to do so. This is precisely what we are discussing, Mr. President. In order to vote on the nomination, we need at least one Democrat to do so. Last week, we did not have such a vote. No Democrat was prepared to cut off debate. I know this because it was discussed ahead of time. Even though Senator Kennedy, who has substantial seniority and was chairman at the time the rule was put forward in 1979, objected and informed the chairman that no Democrat was ready to stop debating, the chairman moved ahead anyway. I had an opportunity to speak to the chairman after this hearing, as a matter of fact, in the garage of the Hart Office Building. I think he has a very good understanding of the sensitivities and the nerve endings that are scratched raw right at this present time. It is my hope the chairman will take steps so we can restore to the committee the consideration that has always been extended. Let me say something about Chairman Hatch. I understand how things can get to one in this committee, and I understand on both sides how-- and the Chair is smiling--how we can be extraordinarily difficult to preside over. I would never make an adverse personal comment about this chairman because I respect him, I like him, he is a friend, we work together. I just want to see the two sides come together, and I want to see this stop. I want to give the assurance, at least from this Senator, that what I want is ample time to do my due diligence on a given nominee. Very often letters do not come in until almost the date of hearing. As the hearing date grows close, it seems people begin to know that something is happening. But if you get the official notice for a hearing the day before--and in this case at 4:46 p.m. the day before-- for three appellate court nominees, it is extraordinarily difficult.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this rule is designed to protect Members who need more time to examine an issue, to discuss it with their colleagues, or to prepare amendments. A very relevant factor. My own office was alerted to the presence of Mr. Roberts and of Mrs. Cook on their hearing agenda the day before the actual hearing. In other words, we learned at 4:46 p.m., Tuesday, January 28, that the next day they would be up for hearing along with Mr. Sutton. I ask unanimous consent that that e-mail be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I also indicate that as the senior Senator from California and as a member of the Energy Committee, I have a specific obligation to render oversight to see that FERC is doing its job. How can anyone possibly render due diligence and oversight if they don't know what is being presented nor have access to what is being presented to the Commission on which they make their judgments? I have spoken four times now about Miguel Estrada and the general state of the nominations process. I regret where these weeks have taken us, frankly. I hope we can come together to overcome what is increasingly separating the two sides of this great body, marring judgments and actions relating to the Judiciary Committee's hearing process and that process through which we advise and consent on nominees by the President to Federal judgeships. In order to understand this filibuster over Miguel Estrada, we also have to understand what has led us to this point. I would like to speak specifically to the nominations debate because this is a key area where the administration has, with few exceptions, acted in many ways as if the Senate simply doesn't matter. If this debate were only about whether or not we should vote on Miguel Estrada, that would be enough. Make no mistake about it. There are serious questions about this nominee that we can't answer without more information, information that this nominee and the administration have essentially refused to provide. My colleagues and I have outlined these concerns over and over again over the past few weeks. I have pointed out that the District of Columbia Circuit is a very critical circuit. Every Member of this body knows that and accepts it. It is a circuit that presides over many of the areas of appeal that are of extraordinary concern because they involve laws we have passed in areas such as worker rights, OSHA, Superfund, wetlands, all environmental concerns, and so on and so forth. It has assumed a particular role, if you will, because of the fact that two of President Clinton's nominees to this circuit never had a committee vote--one did not even have a hearing--this is a different kind of filibuster. So there are a number of vacancies on this circuit. And the circuit as it stands is equally divided, Republicans and Democrats equally divided. Therefore, who breaks this equal division is really important because it will swing the court one way or another. Into this mix comes a very young man, 41 years old. When his nomination came over, it came over with substantial concerns. The Hispanic delegation of the House had sat down and met with Mr. Estrada for an hour and a half. They sent out alerts that they did not believe this was a nominee who really represented the concerns of Hispanic citizens. That in itself is not dispositive. I am the first one to admit that. This is a young man. He spent a lot of time on his education. It is not necessarily a requirement that someone serve on a number of civic groups. But it was a point. Immediately, the Hispanic-American community indicated that there was a great and serious split over this nominee. That in itself is not, again, dispositive. Then we note that he had never been a professor. He had never been a judge. He has no writings and no speeches. So when one turned to look for the due diligence, there was very little to see. We have none of his work product or other memos that would give us an idea of what kind of thinker he is or what kind of judge he would be. And he refused to answer in the public hearing a number of simple, basic questions that go to the heart of whether he could be a truly impartial judge and set aside his advocacy. I mentioned on the floor of the Senate that my office had spoken with Professor Paul Bender, who had been his direct supervisor in the Solicitor General's Office. Mr. Bender told my staff, ``Well, I could not give him certain assignments because I could not be assured that he was impartial.'' This, again, in itself is not dispositive, but it is a danger signal. I talked to individuals who had been interviewed by him in a screening capacity when he was a clerk for Justice Kennedy, and each I talked to indicated that in fact there was a kind of litmus test and that they were told they were too liberal. Again, that is not dispositive. But what all this points out is that we needed--some of us--to find out whether this was a man who could put aside his advocacy, his strong feelings about certain issues, and follow the law with impartial and wise judgments. I came to the conclusion--and some have faulted me for it--after listening to Jeffrey Sutton, that here was a man who had strong views and beliefs, but who was willing to be very fulsome in his answers to the committee, very forthright in his views, and sent a very clear signal--at least to me--that he would, in fact, separate his personal views and the law that he would be charged and constitutionally pledged to uphold. So I voted for him. There has been substantial dismay expressed by many of my constituents in California, and I heard them loud and clear when they picketed virtually every one of my offices. Nonetheless, I made that judgment after listening in a public hearing to questions and answers and, at least for myself, came to a conclusion. Only history will tell whether I am right or wrong. Then, several weeks ago, in a markup in committee, I think another aspect of this situation that perhaps was caused by the strain and the raw nerve endings in the Senate came upon the scene. The Judiciary Committee rules contain a clause providing ``on the request of any member, a nomination or a bill on the agenda of a committee will be held over until the next meeting of the committee, or for one week, whichever occurs later.'' That appears in the rules of the committee. I ask unanimous consent that those rules be printed in the Record, and I particularly call attention to the rule I have just quoted.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last night I introduced the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003,'' bipartisan legislation to authorize funds to relieve State and county governments of the some of the fiscal burdens associated with the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens. I am pleased that Senators McCain, Kyl, Schumer, Boxer, Hutchison, Bingaman and Domenici have joined me in introducing this important measure. The broad principle on which this bill is based is simple: the control of illegal immigration is a Federal responsibility. When the Federal Government falls short in its efforts to control illegal immigration, it must bear the responsibility for the financial and human consequences of this failure. More and more, however, the fiscal consequences of illegal immigration are being borne by the States and local counties. The State Criminal Alien Assistant Program, SCAAP, Reauthorization Act of 2003 would properly vest the fiscal burden of incarcerating illegal immigrants, who are convicted of felonies or multiple misdemeanors, with the Federal Government. The legislation would do so by authorizing up to $750 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for Federal reimbursement to the States and county governments for the direct costs associated with incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. It would authorize an additional $850 million in Fiscal Year 2005, and $950 million for the program in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010. The number of State and local governments seeking SCAAP funding has jumped 25 percent from the previous year. The combination of the increase, and the fact that all 50 States and the District of Columbia receive some funding from the program, suggests that no State is immune from the fiscal costs associated with crimes committed by illegal aliens. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to work with me to not only ensure that the SCAAP program survives, but also that it is adequately funded. At a time when the administration is asking State and local governments to do even more with their local funds to enforce the nation's immigration laws, it is at the same time recommending the elimination of a vital source of funding that already falls far short of what states spend to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens. High impact States, like California, continue to shoulder extraordinary costs for housing illegal aliens in its criminal justice system. The State prisons had an estimated 22,565 criminal aliens it its system out of a total population of 160,728. In just a 3-month period last year, the State's county jails housed just under 10,000 criminal aliens. Overall, California taxpayers paid more than $2.28 billion in 2001 to cover these costs. In 2002, California received a SCAAP payment of $220 million--less than 10 percent of the total costs to the State. This year, California taxpayers can expect to spend even more. The SCAAP reauthorization bill would help California and all other States that are experiencing increasing costs from incarcerating undocumented felons--both low-impact and high-impact states. Last year, the State of Wisconsin and its counties, for example, received more than $3.5 million in funding; Massachusetts received over $13 million; Pennsylvania received lose over $2.6 million; Virginia received more than $6.4 million; North Carolina received $5.2 million; Michigan received $2.9 million; Minnesota received $1.8 million. Thus, even states that have not traditionally had to confront the growth in illegal immigration are now bearing the costs of this Federal responsibility. The administration's opposition to this program is puzzling. I am particularly disappointed that an Administration headed by a former governor of a State highly impacted by the Federal Government's inability to control illegal immigration, would recommend the elimination of this important program. Who pays when these costs go uncovered? In California, the burden will fall on our law enforcement agencies-- including sheriffs, officers on the beat, anti-gang violence units, district attorneys offices. At a time when the nation is focused on enhancing security within our borders, within our States and within our local communities, a vital program like SCAAP should not be vulnerable to being short-changed or eliminated. I note that when the current president was governor of Texas, he was a strong supporter of Federal funding for SCAAP he, too, recognized that controlling illegal immigration was a federal responsibility and that States cannot and should not be expected to handle the national burden on their own. Certainly, the problems that were faced by Texas then with respect to the incarceration of criminal aliens have grown since then-Governor Bush wrote that letter. In 1997, the year in which the letter was written, the State of Texas incurred more than $129 million in incarceration costs. In fiscal year 2002, those costs soared to more than $1.17 billion. It is inexplicable to me that this administration would now call for the elimination for the program. I will include the letter then- Governor Bush wrote to Representative Hal Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies, for the Record. After years of strongly supporting funding for the SCAAP program, President Bush's recent opposition to the program prompted Congress to cut the program by 56 percent this year, from $565 million to $250 million. I urge my colleagues to reverse that course in Fiscal Year 2004 and consider restoring the cuts that were made when Congress considers the FY2003 supplemental appropriations request the administration is likely to submit in the next several weeks. I thank my colleagues who joined me yesterday for their tireless efforts in ensuring that States and local counties receive some compensation for they do their part in securing their communities from criminal aliens who are in the country illegally. I join them in introducing the SCAAP reauthorization legislation in hopes that it will go further to alleviate some of the fiscal hardships States and local governments incur when they must take on this Federal responsibility. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to which I referred in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. FEINSTEIN

Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, ``Success is to be measured not so much by the position one has reached in life, as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed.'' This statement, made over 100 years ago by Booker T. Washington, rings true today. Twenty-seven years ago, February was designated ``Black History Month.'' Today, I am pleased to join in the celebration of the many achievements and contributions African Americans have made to our history. I encourage all of you to celebrate this rich history of achievement year-round. America's history has been shaped by the courage, talent, and ingenuity of African-Americans. Each February we rediscover familiar stories of those who triumphed over bigotry and hatred to help move our Nation closer to living up to its greatest potential. In the lives of Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Rosa Parks, and Thurgood Marshall we find heroes who dedicated their lives to liberty, freedom, and equality. During this month we also celebrate the achievements and vision of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Medgar Evers and are reminded that we must continue the important work they started. A look through our own State's history reveals a rich portrait of African American achievement in California. In science, George Edward Alcorn, Jr. is a brilliant physicist and inventor who has made considerable contributions to semiconductor technology and other scientific fields. He graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a B.A. in Physics, and received an M.S. and Ph.D. in Nuclear, Atomic and Molecular Physics from Howard University. He has been issued more than 25 patents for his groundbreaking work and is most well-known for inventing the Imaging X-ray Spectrometer used for detecting life on other planets. Dr. Alcorn has also been extensively involved in community service. He was awarded a NASA-EEO medal for his contributions in recruiting minority and women scientists and engineers and for his assistance to minority businesses in establishing research programs. He is a founder of Saturday Academy, which is a weekend honors program designed to supplement and extend math-science training for inner-city students in grades 6 to 8. Mae Jemison, an African American physician, scientist and engineer, was the first woman of color to go into space more than 10 years ago. Dr. Jemison was only 16 when she entered Stanford University; she graduated in 1977 at age 20 with degrees in both chemical engineering and African American studies. A few years later, she received a medical degree from Cornell University. Dr. Jemison was selected by NASA in 1988 for Astronaut training and in 1992 became a mission specialist aboard the space shuttle Endeavor. Throughout her career, Dr. Jemison remained undaunted by the lack of role models in her area of expertise and instead paved the way as a hero for women and minorities interested in the science and technology fields. She once said, ``I saw a world that was changing and I wanted to be a part of that.'' Last year, she was honored by the Mentoring Center in Oakland during a ceremony where she stressed the need for caring adults to reach out for young people in these troubled times. Just recently, Dr. Jemison encouraged a young audience at the Modesto Community College to shoot for the stars and realize their capacity to dream. She said, ``We have to have a vision of what we want the world to be in the future. We must combine lessons from the past with our responsibility for the present. It's the only way to have hope for the future.'' Politics: African Americans in the political arena have worked tirelessly to advance the civil rights of all people in California. Largely as a result of their efforts, African Americans are well represented in California local, State and Federal Governments. Below is a short list of other African-American Californians who have made similar contributions to our State and communities across the Nation: Yvonne Brathwaite Burke was the first black woman to be elected to the California General Assembly and the first to be elected to represent California in the United States Congress. Congressman Ronald V. Dellums was elected to Congress in 1970. He was the first African-American to serve on the Armed Services Committee and was its first black chairman. Herb J. Wesson, Jr. is only the second African American in California history to be elected the 65th Speaker of the California State Assembly, one of the most powerful positions in the State. As a student at Lincoln University, a historically black college, Mr. Wesson was inspired to pursue a political career while listening to a speech by then Congressman Ron Dellums of California. During his career, Mr. Wesson has introduced bills that protected labor rights for immigrant workers, ensured pay equity across gender lines, increased funding for low performing schools, and promoted job training for at-risk teens. He has earned a reputation as a natural born leader, mediator and bridge-builder, someone other Assembly members turned to when seeking to resolve a conflict. Sports: African Americans have played an extremely influential role in the development of professional sports. Among the most prominent, Tony Gwynn has demonstrated excellence on and off the field. A native of Long Beach, Gwynn played baseball for the San Diego Padres for 20 years. In addition to his incredible skill on the diamond, Gwynn became a sports hero for youth across the nation. Demonstrating sportsmanship, community service, and athleticism, Gwynn has won numerous community awards for his dedication and activism. He was inducted into the World Sports Humanitarian Hall of Fame in 1999. California can also be very proud of its local African American heroes--those who often go unrecognized by the national community. Improving the community relations in her native neighborhood of Watts, in Los Angeles, has been a lifelong commitment for ``Sweet'' Alice Harris. ``Sweet Alice,'' as she is affectionately called, is the founder of Parents of Watts, a program designed to encourage children to stay in school and away from drugs. Today, Parents of Watts has grown into numerous organizations that provide emergency food and shelter for the homeless, offer health seminars, provide legal and drug counseling, and operate a program for unwed mothers. Sweet Alice is truly one of the best known and most influential community leaders of her generation. Her lifetime of service and commitment to disadvantaged youth stems from her early years as a homeless teenage parent at age 16. In March of 2002, Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante honored Sweet Alice with the Lt. Governor's Woman of the Year award for her tireless efforts for providing Los Angeles youth with a fighting chance in their community, a dedication that has spanned nearly 40 years. This Black History Month, I would like to applaud all African American heroes who have overcome great adversity and risen to incredible heights of success. Many of these heroes have come from humble beginnings, making their successes and contributions to their communities all the more remarkable. I look forward to the coming year in which we will, without a doubt, continue to see African Americans succeed and make a difference, both in their communities and in our country.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation being introduced by my colleague from California the Sacramento Public Safety Act. This Bill would authorize flood control protection and ecosystem restoration through a Mini-Raise of the Folsom Dam as well as authorize the design and construction of a permanent bridge to replace the road that currently runs on top of the Dam. Providing Sacramento with flood protection is a critical public safety need. Further delays only serve to expand opportunities for a catastrophic flood. No urban area in the United States is at higher risk of flooding than Sacramento, CA. Located at the confluence of two major rivers, the American and Sacramento, the floodplain is home to half-a-million residents, $40 billion in property, 5,000 businesses and the necessary supporting infrastructure, all of which has less than 100-year flood protection. With more than $30 billion in damageable property in the floodplain, the Corps of Engineers has estimated the damage from a flood would range from a minimum of $7 billion to as much as $15 billion. As one of the largest economic engines in the world, a flood in California's capital city would effectively shut down the State's government and seriously disrupt regional commerce and transportation. The Mini-Raise will provide Sacramento with a 213-year level of protection. It will allow the system to safely handle a storm 50 percent larger than anything ever recorded in the 3,000-year history of the American River Watershed; it will add 95,000 acre-feet of new emergency flood storage capacity to allow operators to control dam outflows in accordance to what the downstream levees can safely carry; it will bring Folsom Dam into compliance with Federal Dam safety standards; it will restore wildlife habitat along the Lower American River; and it will improve conditions for naturally spawning Steelhead and Salmon by mechanizing temperature control shutters. The project has wide support at Federal, State, and local level. It is supported by the Army Corp of Engineers and funded in the Bush administration's budget request. The project has bi-partisan support in Congress including Republican Congressman Pombo, as well as Democrats: Robert Matsui, George Miller, Mike Thompson, and Ellen Tauscher. It has the local support of Heather Fargo, Mayor of Sacramento; Deborah Ortiz, California State Senator; Darrell Steinberg, California Assemblyman; Illa Collin, Chairman of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors; Butch Hodkins, Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency; Karolyn W. Simon, President of American River Flood Control Alliance; Donald Gerth, California State University, Sacramento; and Vicki Lee, Conservation Chair of the Sierra Club. The bill also calls for a permanent bridge to replace the road that currently runs atop Folsom Dam. Given the recent announcement by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior to close the road over the Dam, the need for such a bridge has become doubly important. This bridge will serve the needs of nearly 20,000 commuters who use the Folsom Dam Road every day. I want to thank my colleague from California for introducing this critical piece of legislation and I ask for support from the rest of the Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation being introduced by my colleague from California the Sacramento Public Safety Act. This Bill would authorize flood control protection and ecosystem restoration through a Mini-Raise of the Folsom Dam as well as authorize the design and construction of a permanent bridge to replace the road that currently runs on top of the Dam. Providing Sacramento with flood protection is a critical public safety need. Further delays only serve to expand opportunities for a catastrophic flood. No urban area in the United States is at higher risk of flooding than Sacramento, CA. Located at the confluence of two major rivers, the American and Sacramento, the floodplain is home to half-a-million residents, $40 billion in property, 5,000 businesses and the necessary supporting infrastructure, all of which has less than 100-year flood protection. With more than $30 billion in damageable property in the floodplain, the Corps of Engineers has estimated the damage from a flood would range from a minimum of $7 billion to as much as $15 billion. As one of the largest economic engines in the world, a flood in California's capital city would effectively shut down the State's government and seriously disrupt regional commerce and transportation. The Mini-Raise will provide Sacramento with a 213-year level of protection. It will allow the system to safely handle a storm 50 percent larger than anything ever recorded in the 3,000-year history of the American River Watershed; it will add 95,000 acre-feet of new emergency flood storage capacity to allow operators to control dam outflows in accordance to what the downstream levees can safely carry; it will bring Folsom Dam into compliance with Federal Dam safety standards; it will restore wildlife habitat along the Lower American River; and it will improve conditions for naturally spawning Steelhead and Salmon by mechanizing temperature control shutters. The project has wide support at Federal, State, and local level. It is supported by the Army Corp of Engineers and funded in the Bush administration's budget request. The project has bi-partisan support in Congress including Republican Congressman Pombo, as well as Democrats: Robert Matsui, George Miller, Mike Thompson, and Ellen Tauscher. It has the local support of Heather Fargo, Mayor of Sacramento; Deborah Ortiz, California State Senator; Darrell Steinberg, California Assemblyman; Illa Collin, Chairman of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors; Butch Hodkins, Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency; Karolyn W. Simon, President of American River Flood Control Alliance; Donald Gerth, California State University, Sacramento; and Vicki Lee, Conservation Chair of the Sierra Club. The bill also calls for a permanent bridge to replace the road that currently runs atop Folsom Dam. Given the recent announcement by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior to close the road over the Dam, the need for such a bridge has become doubly important. This bridge will serve the needs of nearly 20,000 commuters who use the Folsom Dam Road every day. I want to thank my colleague from California for introducing this critical piece of legislation and I ask for support from the rest of the Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Kennedy, Schumer, Corzine, Lautenberg, Durbin, and Levin to introduce the ``Anti-Terrorism Military Sniper Weapon Reclassification Act of 2003.'' This bill, identical to legislation I have introduced in the last two Congresses, will reclassify powerful fifty-caliber military sniper rifles under the National Firearms Act, thus making it much more difficult for terrorists, doomsday cults, and criminals to obtain these guns for illegitimate use. Fifty-caliber sniper rifles, manufactured by a small handful of companies and individuals, are deadly, military style assault weapons, designed for armed combat with wartime enemies. They weight up to 28 pounds and are capable of piercing light armor at more than 4 miles. The guns enable a single shooter to destroy enemy aircraft, jeeps, tanks, personnel carriers, bunkers, fuel stations, and even communication centers. As a result, their use by military organizations worldwide has been spreading rapidly. But along with the increasing military use of the gun, we have also seen increased use of the weapon by violent criminals and terrorists around the world. These weapons are deadly accurate up to 2,000 yards. This means that a shooter using a 50-caliber weapon can reliably hit a target more than a mile away. In fact, according to a training manual for military and police snipers published in 1993, a bullet from this gun ``even at one and a half miles crashes into a target with more energy than Dirty Harry's famous .44 magnum at point-blank'' range. And the gun is ``effective'' up to 7,500 yards. In other words, although it may be hard to aim at this distance, the gun will have its desired destructive effect at that distance--more than 4 miles from the target. The weapon can penetrate several inches of steel, concrete, or even light armor. In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns--they are just too powerful. Recent advances in weapons technology allow this gun to be used by civilians against armored limousines, bunkers, individuals, and even aircraft--in fact, one advertisement for the gun apparently promoted the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars worth of cartridge.'' This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover GAO investigators ``You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will definitely ban .50- calibers. This gun is just too powerful.'' When I first introduced this bill, I commented that a study by the General Accounting Office revealed some eye-opening facts about how and where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug traffickers, and violent criminals. According to a special agent at ATF's Atlanta Field Division, the Barrett .50-caliber rifle is ``a devastatingly powerful weapon against which most troops, most law enforcement and no civilians have any means of defense.'' He added that the rifle is ``a tremendous threat'' for ``those most shocking and horrifying crimes, assassinations, murders, assaults on law enforcement officers.'' In 1998, Federal law enforcement apprehended three men belonging to a radical Michigan militia group. The three were charged with plotting to bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways and utilities. They were also charged with plotting to assassinate the State's Governor, a U.S. Senator and Federal judges. A .50-caliber sniper rifle was found in their possession along with a cache of weapons that included three illegal machine guns. One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased 10 of these guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and other guns. At least one .50-caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the guns are making their way into the hands of criminals worldwide. Another .50-caliber sniper rifle, smuggled out of the United States, was used by the Irish Republican Army to kill a large number of British soldiers. Even more recently we have learned that Al Qaeda has received .50- caliber sniper rifles--rifles that were manufactured right here in the United States. Nearly 2 years ago today, Essam al Ridi, a U.S. agent for Al Qaeda, testified that he acquired 25 Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and shipped them to Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. We have no way of knowing whether Al Qaeda has obtained more or who has supplied them with these weapons, but we can be sure that any .50-caliber weapon in the hands of Al Qaeda will almost certainly be used against Americans or American interests. Ammunition for these guns is also readily available, even over the Internet. Bullets for these guns include ``armor piercing incendiary'' ammunition that explodes on impact, and even ``armor piercing tracing'' ammunition reminiscent of the ammunition that lit up the skies over Baghdad during the Persian Gulf war. Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored limousine or maybe to ``take down'' a helicopter. In fact, our own military helps to provide thousands of rounds of .50-caliber ammunition, by essentially giving away tons of spent cartridges, many of which are then refurbished and sold on the civilian market. This bill will begin the process of making these guns harder to get and easier to track. Current law classifies .50-caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to the least government regulation for any firearm. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and even handguns are more highly regulated than this military sniper rifle. In fact, many States allow possession of .50- caliber guns by those as young as 14 years old, and there is no regulation on second-hand sales. Essentially, this bill would reclassify .50-caliber guns under the National Firearms Act, which imposes far stricter standards on powerful and destruction weapons. For instance: NFA guns may only be purchased from a licensed dealer, and not second-hand. This will prevent the sale of these guns at gun shows and in other venues that make it hard for law enforcement to track the weapons. Second, purchasers of NFA guns must fill out license transfer applications and provide fingerprints to be processed by the FBI in detailed criminal background checks. By reclassifying the .50-caliber, Congress will be making a determination that sellers should be more careful about to whom they give these powerful, military guns. ATF reports that this background check process takes about 60 days, so prospective gun buyers will face some delay. However, legitimate purchasers of this $7,000 gun can certainly wait that long. Clearly, placing a few more restrictions on who can get these guns and how is simply common sense. This bill will not ban the sale, use or possession of .50-caliber weapons. The .50-caliber shooting club will not face extinction, and ``legitimate'' purchasers of these guns will not lose their access--even though that, too, might be a reasonable step, since I cannot imagine a legitimate use of this gun. I do not view the reclassification of .50-caliber weapons so much as an issue of firearm safety, but rather as a matter of national security. And I can say for a fact that I am not alone in that view. Indeed the U.S. Air Force has studied the scenario of a potential terrorist attack with a .50-caliber weapon. According to a November 2001 article in the Air Force's official magazine, Airman, an antisniper assessment claimed that planes parked on a fully protected U.S. airbase are as vulnerable as ``ducks on a pond'' because the weapons can shoot from beyond most airbase perimeters. The Air Force has addressed the issue and the effectiveness of specially trained countersnipers to respond to a .50-caliber weapon attack on aircraft, fuel tanks, control towers, and personnel. While I am glad to know our military has given due consideration to the threats posed by .50-caliber weapons, I have real concerns over the threats posed to civilian aviation. Our Nation's airports in no way match the security measures at air force bases. These commercial facilities handle millions of passengers and tons of cargo each day and are especially vulnerable to the threats posed by .50-caliber weapons. The threats to civilian aviation have been made abundantly clear over the last year and a half. The events of September 11 certainly showed the ability of terrorists to find loopholes in aviation security. The recent attack on an Israeli airliner last November in Kenya serves as an example of the threat these weapons pose. Less than 4 months ago, an Israeli airliner, loaded with hundreds of innocent civilians, became the target of a terrorist attack. Two heat-seeking, Russian-made missiles known as SA-7s were launched at Arkia Flight 582 a few minutes after it took off from the Mombasa airport bound for Israel. Fortunately, the two missiles passed by the jet, and the flight, with 271 people on board, was able to land safely in Tel Aviv a few hours later. A shoulder-fire missile launcher was found on the ground near the airport. A previously unknown group calling itself the Army of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attacks, but government officials in Kenya and Israel, along with terrorism experts, said the operation was well coordinated and bore the trademarks of Al Qaeda or an affiliated group. This type of attack, one on civilian aircraft, is exactly the sort that a .50-caliber weapon is capable of. Experts have agreed that .50- caliber weapons aimed at a plane while stationary, or taking off or arriving could be just as disastrous as a hit from a missile launcher. Gal Luft, co-Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security has described .50-caliber weapons as ``lethal to slow moving planes.'' For further assurance of the potential destruction of these weapons, simply listen to the manufacturers themselves. According to a Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Model 82A1 .50 caliber sniper rifle brochure. ``The cost effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than 10 U.S. dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft. The compressor sections of jet engines or the transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of destroying multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.'' The Nordic Ammunition Company is the developer of the Raufoss multipurpose ammunition for .50-caliber weapons that combines armor- piercing, incendiary, and explosive features and was used by U.S. forces during the gulf war. According to the company, the ammunition can ignite military jet fuel and has ``the equivalent firing power of a 20-mm projectile to include such targets as helicopters, aircrafts, light armor vehicles, ships, and light fortifications.'' The bill will simply place stricter requirements on the way in which these guns can be sold, and to whom. The measure is meant to offer a reasoned solution to making it harder for terrorists, assassins, and other criminals to obtain these powerful weapons. If we are to continue to allow private citizens to own and use guns of this caliber, range, and destructive power, we should at the very least take greater care in making sure that these guns do no fall into the wrong hands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Kennedy, Schumer, Corzine, Lautenberg, Durbin, and Levin to introduce the ``Anti-Terrorism Military Sniper Weapon Reclassification Act of 2003.'' This bill, identical to legislation I have introduced in the last two Congresses, will reclassify powerful fifty-caliber military sniper rifles under the National Firearms Act, thus making it much more difficult for terrorists, doomsday cults, and criminals to obtain these guns for illegitimate use. Fifty-caliber sniper rifles, manufactured by a small handful of companies and individuals, are deadly, military style assault weapons, designed for armed combat with wartime enemies. They weight up to 28 pounds and are capable of piercing light armor at more than 4 miles. The guns enable a single shooter to destroy enemy aircraft, jeeps, tanks, personnel carriers, bunkers, fuel stations, and even communication centers. As a result, their use by military organizations worldwide has been spreading rapidly. But along with the increasing military use of the gun, we have also seen increased use of the weapon by violent criminals and terrorists around the world. These weapons are deadly accurate up to 2,000 yards. This means that a shooter using a 50-caliber weapon can reliably hit a target more than a mile away. In fact, according to a training manual for military and police snipers published in 1993, a bullet from this gun ``even at one and a half miles crashes into a target with more energy than Dirty Harry's famous .44 magnum at point-blank'' range. And the gun is ``effective'' up to 7,500 yards. In other words, although it may be hard to aim at this distance, the gun will have its desired destructive effect at that distance--more than 4 miles from the target. The weapon can penetrate several inches of steel, concrete, or even light armor. In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns--they are just too powerful. Recent advances in weapons technology allow this gun to be used by civilians against armored limousines, bunkers, individuals, and even aircraft--in fact, one advertisement for the gun apparently promoted the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars worth of cartridge.'' This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover GAO investigators ``You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will definitely ban .50- calibers. This gun is just too powerful.'' When I first introduced this bill, I commented that a study by the General Accounting Office revealed some eye-opening facts about how and where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug traffickers, and violent criminals. According to a special agent at ATF's Atlanta Field Division, the Barrett .50-caliber rifle is ``a devastatingly powerful weapon against which most troops, most law enforcement and no civilians have any means of defense.'' He added that the rifle is ``a tremendous threat'' for ``those most shocking and horrifying crimes, assassinations, murders, assaults on law enforcement officers.'' In 1998, Federal law enforcement apprehended three men belonging to a radical Michigan militia group. The three were charged with plotting to bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways and utilities. They were also charged with plotting to assassinate the State's Governor, a U.S. Senator and Federal judges. A .50-caliber sniper rifle was found in their possession along with a cache of weapons that included three illegal machine guns. One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased 10 of these guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and other guns. At least one .50-caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the guns are making their way into the hands of criminals worldwide. Another .50-caliber sniper rifle, smuggled out of the United States, was used by the Irish Republican Army to kill a large number of British soldiers. Even more recently we have learned that Al Qaeda has received .50- caliber sniper rifles--rifles that were manufactured right here in the United States. Nearly 2 years ago today, Essam al Ridi, a U.S. agent for Al Qaeda, testified that he acquired 25 Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and shipped them to Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. We have no way of knowing whether Al Qaeda has obtained more or who has supplied them with these weapons, but we can be sure that any .50-caliber weapon in the hands of Al Qaeda will almost certainly be used against Americans or American interests. Ammunition for these guns is also readily available, even over the Internet. Bullets for these guns include ``armor piercing incendiary'' ammunition that explodes on impact, and even ``armor piercing tracing'' ammunition reminiscent of the ammunition that lit up the skies over Baghdad during the Persian Gulf war. Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored limousine or maybe to ``take down'' a helicopter. In fact, our own military helps to provide thousands of rounds of .50-caliber ammunition, by essentially giving away tons of spent cartridges, many of which are then refurbished and sold on the civilian market. This bill will begin the process of making these guns harder to get and easier to track. Current law classifies .50-caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to the least government regulation for any firearm. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and even handguns are more highly regulated than this military sniper rifle. In fact, many States allow possession of .50- caliber guns by those as young as 14 years old, and there is no regulation on second-hand sales. Essentially, this bill would reclassify .50-caliber guns under the National Firearms Act, which imposes far stricter standards on powerful and destruction weapons. For instance: NFA guns may only be purchased from a licensed dealer, and not second-hand. This will prevent the sale of these guns at gun shows and in other venues that make it hard for law enforcement to track the weapons. Second, purchasers of NFA guns must fill out license transfer applications and provide fingerprints to be processed by the FBI in detailed criminal background checks. By reclassifying the .50-caliber, Congress will be making a determination that sellers should be more careful about to whom they give these powerful, military guns. ATF reports that this background check process takes about 60 days, so prospective gun buyers will face some delay. However, legitimate purchasers of this $7,000 gun can certainly wait that long. Clearly, placing a few more restrictions on who can get these guns and how is simply common sense. This bill will not ban the sale, use or possession of .50-caliber weapons. The .50-caliber shooting club will not face extinction, and ``legitimate'' purchasers of these guns will not lose their access--even though that, too, might be a reasonable step, since I cannot imagine a legitimate use of this gun. I do not view the reclassification of .50-caliber weapons so much as an issue of firearm safety, but rather as a matter of national security. And I can say for a fact that I am not alone in that view. Indeed the U.S. Air Force has studied the scenario of a potential terrorist attack with a .50-caliber weapon. According to a November 2001 article in the Air Force's official magazine, Airman, an antisniper assessment claimed that planes parked on a fully protected U.S. airbase are as vulnerable as ``ducks on a pond'' because the weapons can shoot from beyond most airbase perimeters. The Air Force has addressed the issue and the effectiveness of specially trained countersnipers to respond to a .50-caliber weapon attack on aircraft, fuel tanks, control towers, and personnel. While I am glad to know our military has given due consideration to the threats posed by .50-caliber weapons, I have real concerns over the threats posed to civilian aviation. Our Nation's airports in no way match the security measures at air force bases. These commercial facilities handle millions of passengers and tons of cargo each day and are especially vulnerable to the threats posed by .50-caliber weapons. The threats to civilian aviation have been made abundantly clear over the last year and a half. The events of September 11 certainly showed the ability of terrorists to find loopholes in aviation security. The recent attack on an Israeli airliner last November in Kenya serves as an example of the threat these weapons pose. Less than 4 months ago, an Israeli airliner, loaded with hundreds of innocent civilians, became the target of a terrorist attack. Two heat-seeking, Russian-made missiles known as SA-7s were launched at Arkia Flight 582 a few minutes after it took off from the Mombasa airport bound for Israel. Fortunately, the two missiles passed by the jet, and the flight, with 271 people on board, was able to land safely in Tel Aviv a few hours later. A shoulder-fire missile launcher was found on the ground near the airport. A previously unknown group calling itself the Army of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attacks, but government officials in Kenya and Israel, along with terrorism experts, said the operation was well coordinated and bore the trademarks of Al Qaeda or an affiliated group. This type of attack, one on civilian aircraft, is exactly the sort that a .50-caliber weapon is capable of. Experts have agreed that .50- caliber weapons aimed at a plane while stationary, or taking off or arriving could be just as disastrous as a hit from a missile launcher. Gal Luft, co-Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security has described .50-caliber weapons as ``lethal to slow moving planes.'' For further assurance of the potential destruction of these weapons, simply listen to the manufacturers themselves. According to a Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Model 82A1 .50 caliber sniper rifle brochure. ``The cost effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than 10 U.S. dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft. The compressor sections of jet engines or the transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of destroying multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.'' The Nordic Ammunition Company is the developer of the Raufoss multipurpose ammunition for .50-caliber weapons that combines armor- piercing, incendiary, and explosive features and was used by U.S. forces during the gulf war. According to the company, the ammunition can ignite military jet fuel and has ``the equivalent firing power of a 20-mm projectile to include such targets as helicopters, aircrafts, light armor vehicles, ships, and light fortifications.'' The bill will simply place stricter requirements on the way in which these guns can be sold, and to whom. The measure is meant to offer a reasoned solution to making it harder for terrorists, assassins, and other criminals to obtain these powerful weapons. If we are to continue to allow private citizens to own and use guns of this caliber, range, and destructive power, we should at the very least take greater care in making sure that these guns do no fall into the wrong hands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation to repeal two provisions of current law that reduce earned Social Security benefits for teachers and other government pensioners--the Windfall Elimination, WEP, provision, and the Government Pension Offset, GPO, provision. Under current law, public employees, whose salaries are often lower than those in the private sector to begin with, find that they are penalized and held to a different standard when it comes to retirement benefits. The unfair reduction in their benefits makes it more difficult to recruit teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and also receive a government pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund. Private sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 90 percent of their first $561 in average monthly career earnings, plus 32 percent of monthly earnings up to $3,381 and 15 percent of earnings above $3,381. Government pensioners, however, are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $561 in career monthly earnings, a penalty of $280.50 per month. To my mind it is simply unfair, especially at a time when we need to be doing all we can to attract qualified people to government service, and my legislation will allow government pensioners the chance to earn the same 90 percent to which non-government pension recipients are entitled. The current Government Pension Offset provision reduces Social Security spousal benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the spouse's public employment civil service pension. This can have the effect of taking away, entirely, a spouse's benefits from Social Security. It is beyond my understanding why we would want to discourage people from pursuing careers in public service by essentially saying that if you do enter public service, your family will suffer by not being able to receive the full retirement benefits they would otherwise be entitled to. Record enrollments in public schools and the projected retirements of thousands of veteran teachers are driving an urgent need for teacher recruitment. Critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate hiring additional teachers. It is estimated that schools will need to hire between 2.2 and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by 2009. California has 284,030 teachers currently, but will need to hire an additional 300,000 teachers by 2010 to keep up with California's rate of student enrollment, which is three times the national average. All in all, California has to hire 26,000 new teachers every year. To combat the growing teacher shortage crisis, forty-five States and the District of Columbia now offer ``alternate routes'' for certification to teach in the Nation's public schools. It is a sad irony that policymakers are encouraging experienced people to change careers and enter the teaching profession at the same time that individuals who have worked in other careers are less likely to want to become teachers if doing so will affect Social Security benefits they worked so hard to earn. Almost 300,000 government retirees nationwide are affected by the GPO and the WEP, but their impact is greatest in the 13 states that chose to keep their own public employee retirement systems, including California. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for some 200,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a year. The WEP causes already low-paid public employees outside the Social Security system, like teachers, firefighters and police officers, to lose up to sixty percent of the Social Security benefits to which they are entitled. Ironically, the loss of Social Security benefits may make these individuals eligible for more costly assistance, such as food stamps. The reforms that led to the GPO and the WEP are almost 20 years old. At the time they were enacted, I'm sure they seemed like a good idea. Now that we are witnessing the practical effects of those reforms, I hope that Congress will pass legislation to address the unfair reduction of benefits that make it even more difficult to recruit and retain public employees.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today to direct the Interior Secretary to conduct a study to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor. The Rim of the Valley Corridor encircles the San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta, Simi, Santa Clarita, Conejo Valleys, consisting of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills and connects to the adjacent Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests. This parcel of land is unique because of its rare Mediterranean ecosystem and wildlife corridor that stretches north from the Santa Monicas. With the population growth forecasted to multiply exponentially over the next several decades, the need for parks to balance out the expected population growth has become critical in California. Since the creation of the Santa Monica Recreation Area in 1978, Federal, State, and local authorities have worked successfully together to create and maintain the highly successful Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, the world's largest urban park, hemmed in on all sides by development. Park and recreational lands provide people with a vital refuge from urban life while preserving valuable habitat and wildlife. With the passage of this legislation, Congress will hold true to its original commitment to preserve the scenic, natural, and historic setting of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area. With the inclusion of the Rim of the Valley Corridor in Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, greater ecological health and diversity will be promoted, particularly for larger animals like mountain lions, bobcats, and the golden eagle. After the study called for in this bill is complete, the Secretary of the Interior and Congress will be in a key position to determine whether the Rim of the Valley warrants national park status. This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Adam Schiff plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his commitment to this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today to direct the Interior Secretary to conduct a study to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor. The Rim of the Valley Corridor encircles the San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta, Simi, Santa Clarita, Conejo Valleys, consisting of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills and connects to the adjacent Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests. This parcel of land is unique because of its rare Mediterranean ecosystem and wildlife corridor that stretches north from the Santa Monicas. With the population growth forecasted to multiply exponentially over the next several decades, the need for parks to balance out the expected population growth has become critical in California. Since the creation of the Santa Monica Recreation Area in 1978, Federal, State, and local authorities have worked successfully together to create and maintain the highly successful Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, the world's largest urban park, hemmed in on all sides by development. Park and recreational lands provide people with a vital refuge from urban life while preserving valuable habitat and wildlife. With the passage of this legislation, Congress will hold true to its original commitment to preserve the scenic, natural, and historic setting of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area. With the inclusion of the Rim of the Valley Corridor in Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, greater ecological health and diversity will be promoted, particularly for larger animals like mountain lions, bobcats, and the golden eagle. After the study called for in this bill is complete, the Secretary of the Interior and Congress will be in a key position to determine whether the Rim of the Valley warrants national park status. This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Adam Schiff plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his commitment to this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in his letter, Judge Gonzales suggested I based my decision to vote against Mr. Estrada on ``inaccurate or incomplete information on certain issues that you have deemed important to the Estrada nomination.'' Needless to say, I disagree with that assessment. It is not because I was misinformed that I voted against this nominee. It is because this nominee did not inform the committee enough. Simply put, Mr. Estrada did not adequately answer the questions put to him in his hearing. Particularly with a nominee who is so young, has such a very limited or nonexistent written record, and has been accused by so many of being too ideologically driven to serve impartially on the second highest court in the land, it is incumbent on each Member of the Senate, in our advise and consent role, to thoroughly examine the nominee's thought processes and to determine whether the nominee can and will be an impartial judge. In this case, it was impossible to make such an assessment because the nominee himself would not let us. Judge Gonzales raised four specific issues in his letter. I would like to take some time to go through the Gonzales charges and to answer them one by one. First, Judge Gonzales stated in his letter to me ``[I]t appears that you relied on the fact that Estrada has no previous judicial service.'' It is true that Mr. Estrada has no previous judicial experience, but I did not rely on Mr. Estrada's lack of judicial experience, at least not exclusively. I said in my statement before the committee ``[i]n this case, it is truly difficult to make this decision, because we have before us a fairly young nominee--just 41 years old--who has never been a judge, has little written record to speak of, and who has not given us a real sense of what kind of judge he would be. He, essentially, is a blank slate. And if confirmed, he could serve for 30, 40 or even 50 years on one of the highest courts in this nation. We had better be right about this decision.'' I truly believe this. This is a big decision, as are all our decisions to place nominees in lifetime positions of such power and influence over the lives of people. I was concerned, and I remain concerned, that given Mr. Estrada's lack of judicial experience, the Judiciary Committee needed to turn to other sources of information to get a better sense--any sense, really-- of the kind of judge he would be. Unfortunately, we had few other sources of information to which we could turn. With so few writings, no record as a professor, no access to legal memos he wrote while at the Department of Justice, our committee was left with little to go on as we contemplated this nominee. Mr. Estrada's lack of judicial experience was just one factor that made it more difficult to review his way of thinking and to determine what kind of judge he would become if confirmed. I have supported nominees without judicial experience in the past--I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea--and I would not hesitate to do so again when appropriate. Although I think it preferable, if possible, to have nominees with judicial experience, I also recognize that many brilliant lawyers with no such experience have become excellent and, in fact, even legendary judges. In this case, it was not the lack of judicial experience itself that concerned me but the fact that this lack of experience, when combined with the lack of information from other sources, left the committee with no real basis to evaluate this nominee. In his letter to me, Judge Gonzales mentioned a number of specific individuals nominated to the Ninth Circuit by President Clinton, nominees I supported despite their lack of judicial experience. These nominees--Judges William Fletcher, Marsha Berzon, and Raymond Fisher-- all had distinguished backgrounds and a wealth of background materials for the committee to review, but no judicial experience. Since these specific nominees were mentioned, I thought it would be interesting to note the paths they took to confirmation because the nature of the deliberative process the Senate was able to undertake with these nominees is in striking contrast to what we are confronted with today. William Fletcher, for instance, was nominated on April 25, 1995. His first hearing came on December 19, 1995, about 8 months later. Dr. Fletcher had been a prolific academic writer and a distinguished law professor at the University of California at Berkeley for almost 20 years by the time he was nominated. At his hearing, he had the opportunity--and he took it--to discuss articles he had written that were critical of certain Supreme Court decisions and to explain and discuss other articles he had written on a variety of subjects. The Judiciary Committee had access to a wide range of written materials about or written by Dr. Fletcher. And just as importantly, the committee members also had the opportunity to engage in a back and forth with the nominee to learn about his thought process. In contrast to the Estrada hearing, Professor Fletcher answered every question forthrightly and fully. Where Estrada stated he could not answer, Fletcher engaged in real discussion. Despite this, however, William Fletcher's nomination sat without action until April of 1998, 3 years after his first hearing. And after those 3 years, he was not yet given a vote. Instead, he was given a second hearing. Finally, on October 8, 1998, almost 3\1/2\ years after he was first nominated, William Fletcher was finally confirmed. Judge Fletcher, at the time of his nomination, had no judicial experience, but the committee had a wealth of other information about him and written by him to properly gauge his suitability for the Ninth Circuit. Furthermore, it has been reported that his nomination finally moved forward only after Dr. Fletcher's mother, a Federal judge herself, agreed to take senior status, and after President Clinton and the Republican leadership agreed to appoint a judge, named by Republicans, to a vacancy on the Ninth Circuit. That is a good example of communication and even negotiation between the White House and the Senate on the issue of judicial nominations. I remember it well. And I thank those leaders of our committee who engaged in those discussions. I am not saying that I believe Judge Fletcher's nomination path should become the norm, but since Judge Gonzales mentioned Judge Fletcher by name, it is interesting to note how that nominee, with no judicial experience, fared under the Republican-controlled Senate back then. Marsha Berzon, another nominee mentioned in Judge Gonzales' letter, was nominated on January 27, 1998. Her first hearing came 6 months later--not bad--on July 30, 1998. Again, at that hearing Mrs. Berzon answered every conceivable question about her background, her thought process, and her other issues. Right, she had no prior judicial experience. Then almost a year went by with no further action until she underwent a second hearing and again submitted herself to questioning by the committee. Just to cite one example from that second hearing, Senator Sessions asked Mrs. Berzon to expand upon an answer she had given at her first hearing about the death penalty. Quoting Senator Sessions now: I remember I asked you about Justice Brennan's decision on the unconstitutionality of the death penalty. He believed that the death penalty was unconstitutional. . . . [a]nd I asked you . . . .how you felt about Justice Brennan's view, and you said you did not like to say what you agree with and what you do not agree with when you haven't had time to think about it. Fair enough. Have you had time now and would you like to comment now? In her response, Mrs. Berzon stated: . . . I certainly have had a chance to think about it and go back and look at the Constitution. And having done so, I would certainly agree that the indications of that document are that the Framers of the Constitution understood that capital punishment would be permitted under the Constitution. . . . I was a law clerk to Justice Brennan, as you know, I admire him enormously as a man and a mentor. I did not agree with everything that he said, and I think in particular that I intend to take a more literal view to statutes and to constitutional provisions than he does. It makes me more comfortable, and it is the way I tend to think. It is this back and forth that gives committee members a sense of how nominees think and, therefore, how they will approach the duties confronting them as Federal judges. By the time Marsha Berzon was finally confirmed on March 9, 2000, more than 2 years and two hearings after she had been nominated, the Judiciary Committee and the Senate had more than enough of a record to judge her nomination, despite her lack of judicial experience. This information is simply not there for Miguel Estrada. Raymond Fisher was the third Ninth Circuit nominee mentioned in the Gonzales letter. Here again is a nominee with no judicial experience but, here again, unlike Mr. Estrada, Raymond Fisher had a depth and breath of other experiences that allowed the committee to fully examine the nominee and his nomination and come to an informed decision. Raymond Fisher proved himself in many different functions to be impartial, to gain the respect of his peers, and to evidence the temperament required to be a Federal judge. From serving as a Supreme Court clerk to working in private practice, to serving as the head of the Los Angeles Police Department's civilian oversight panel, Fisher was often in the public eye and continuously showed an evenhandedness and ability to work through complex issues that would clearly serve him well from the bench. Then-mayor Richard Riordan of Los Angeles, a Republican, said that he chose Fisher for the police commission job ``because he did not have a political agenda and called the facts as he saw them.'' That is exactly what we look for in a nominee. And in the case of Miguel Estrada, I am not convinced that we have it. Additionally, in the Fisher, Berzon, and Fletcher cases, we had volumes of support letters from every conceivable source of every political background and, most importantly, there was not significant opposition as exists in the Estrada case. Quite frankly, if everyone who knows a nominee comes to the committee with glowing praise and statements that the nominee has perfect knowledge, experience, and temperament to be a judge, it is obviously easier to feel comfortable confirming that nominee regardless of the level of actual judicial experience. Likewise, even a nominee with overwhelming judicial experience might face trouble if a large number of people who had worked with or for that nominee expressed strong concerns about his or her impartiality. Here, with Miguel Estrada, we have a man with no judicial experience and who has been the subject of a large volume of concern about his temperament and his ability to fairly and impartially judge a given situation. This, in my opinion, presents a problem. The second issue raised in the Gonzales letter involves Professor Paul Bender, Mr. Estrada's direct supervisor at the Solicitor General's office. Specifically, I mentioned in my committee statement on the Estrada nomination that I was concerned about a statement Professor Bender had made in the press that Miguel Estrada is so ``ideologically driven that he couldn't be trusted to state the law in a fair, neutral way.'' In response to this quote from me, Judge Gonzales cited a number of internal Justice Department evaluations indicating that Professor Bender had given Mr. Estrada positive reviews while at the Justice Department. It is relevant to the decisionmaking process when a nominee's former supervisor feels compelled to comment that he is too ideologically driven to be a fair judge, and it is certainly possible at the very least that an attorney could be both an excellent legal scholar and an excellent advocate but be ill-suited for the judiciary, as suggested by Professor Bender. In any event, I recently asked my staff to contact Professor Bender by telephone and ask him about his comments to the press and his past evaluations of Miguel Estrada. In doing so, my staff discovered some interesting facts. First, I am told that Professor Bender stands by his statements to the press ``100 percent'' and would say so if asked. Second, according to Professor Bender, the positive evaluations that Judge Gonzales and others cited consisted merely of boilerplate language next to check marks. He stated every employee received the highest evaluation automatically. And perhaps of most relevance, Professor Bender indicated to my staff that he was already so concerned about Mr. Estrada's ideological bent while supervising him at the Department of Justice that he learned not to rely on his memos and in fact stopped assigning him important work. In other words, as an employee of the Justice Department whose job it was to advocate to the best of his ability, Miguel Estrada's direct supervisor did not trust him to be fair and impartial. I asked my staff to call Professor Bender and read this to him, and he stands by it. This was not a last-minute conversion as some have suggested but an ongoing concern. I have listened to some of the attacks on Mr. Bender. I don't think they reflect well on the Senate. I may not agree with everything Professor Bender has done or advocated within his lifetime, but this is a man with very impressive credentials. Paul Bender graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1957. He served as a law clerk to Judge Learned Hand of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter before embarking on a distinguished career as a professor and in the U.S. Solicitor General's Office. He spent 24 years as a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and he also served as dean of the Arizona State College of Law. He has argued more than 20 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, I think it is worth taking his comment into consideration as one of many factors we must look at when trying to determine whether Mr. Estrada can be a fair and impartial judge. The third issue raised in the letter sent to me and published by White House counsel is the fact that I ``referenced the fact that Miguel Estrada has been `accused' of using an ideological litmus test when assisting Justice Kennedy in the selection of his law clerks.'' This is true. Specifically, I was concerned that two individuals who had tried to get a clerkship with Justice Kennedy believed very strongly that they had been subjected to a litmus test for being too liberal and had been rejected out of hand as a result. Both individuals had been quoted in the press, and while these accusations were by no means dispositive in my decisionmaking, they were yet another example of comments made by those who know Mr. Estrada, or worked with him, that he is simply too ideological for the bench. When I first heard about these comments, I was concerned but also wary. Because the quotes we were given came from anonymous sources in a news article, I wanted to be sure they were accurate. But having done a bit more research on the subject, I am confident these two individuals truly believe that a litmus test was applied to them. Without countervailing evidence, such as a written record or substantive responses to committee questioning, it is difficult to assuage the concerns raised by these applicants and others. Now that I have outlined some of my concerns about Miguel Estrada, I want to take a few moments to talk about the general state of the nominations process and what I see as a real lack of consultation between the White House and many Members of the Senate in making these nominations. It is this lack of consultation in the nominations process that has led, I think, many in the minority party to become increasingly concerned about individual nominees, about scheduling, and whether or not there will be any real advice and consent for the Senate. Early on in the Bush Presidency, I sat down with representatives from the White House and we worked out together a system for nominating district court judges in California that works, and works well. Essentially, we set up one nominating committee for each district in California. Each committee is made up of six members, three chosen by the White House and one chosen by me, one chosen by Senator Boxer, and then Senator Boxer and I choose the third representative together. In other words, each committee is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans, an even number. No name can be forwarded to the President for nomination unless a majority of the commission members agree. So this means that at least one member of each party must consent to every name forwarded to the President for consideration. For each vacancy, the commission submits several names, so the President may still choose the particular nominee. But we have agreed that no individual will be nominated without first receiving at least a majority vote. This has really worked, Mr. President, and worked well. It is producing well-qualified, nonideological judges for California district courts. These commissions have already worked to produce eight highly qualified, noncontroversial nominees. Five of those have already been confirmed, one more was voted out of committee, and two more were only recently received by the Senate. Here is the point: The five judges now confirmed spent an average of only 93 days--about 3 months--from the day they were nominated to the day they were confirmed. The process is working. It was my hope when we established this process that the White House would move quickly to establish similar agreements with other States. After all, the Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility of advising the President on his or her nominees, and consenting or declining to consent to those nominations. It is thus our duty to work with each President in helping to select and to judge the qualifications of nominees to the Federal bench. This advise and consent role should not be taken lightly. Helping to shape the Federal judiciary may well be one of the most important things any Senator will do during his or her term. The quality and nature of the nominees we pass through the Senate will alter the makeup of the courts for years to come, often long after we have retired from this body. Too many of my colleagues have found themselves with no ability to consult on nominees to the district court, or even the circuit court. Indeed, in some instances the White House has completely disregarded the advice or even nominated the candidate most opposed by a home State Senator. In other instances, vacancies kept open by the deliberate inaction of the Republican-controlled Senate of recent years may now be filled en masse, with far more ideological nominees, artificially skewing these courts to the right. This is the environment surrounding the nomination of Miguel Estrada. We have before us a nominee who was controversial from the very start. When the Judiciary Committee tried to find out more about him, we were stymied at every turn: No written record, no work product, and unresponsive answers to our questions at the hearing. The Constitution established a system of checks and balances, one that has served this Nation well for more than two centuries. The President is the Commander in Chief, but the Congress declares war and funds the military. The President signs treaties, the Senate ratifies them. The President makes nominations, but we advise him in that role and consent to the nominees themselves. Without any prior advice role, it sometimes becomes necessary for the consent process to become more confrontational, as it has recently. But it is my hope that in coming months we will come together as a Senate-- not as Democrats or Republicans, but one body--to work through the nomination issues that have so torn us apart over the last decade. It is also my hope that this President will work with all Senators, as he has worked with me, to establish a framework for producing moderate, qualified judges for every district court in the Nation. It is my hope that we can make these debates about substance and qualifications, not about ideology or partnership. I cannot at this time support Miguel Estrada for the D.C. Circuit court. As I pointed out earlier, I might very well support him for a district court position. He is 41. This is a 40- or 50-year position. This is a debate that will not end today or tomorrow or in the coming months, unless we can all calm the rhetoric, sit down, and discuss how we can move through the process with greater consultation, greater fairness, and a greater respect for the constitutional role of the Senate. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to explain my position on the nomination of Miguel Estrada and to speak more generally on the state of the nomination process in today's Senate. This is a difficult time for all of us in the Senate and, indeed, the Nation. We stand on the brink of war, with an economy that is sputtering, and the threat of international terrorism as close at hand as it has ever been. These are serious issues, issues the American people have sent us here to debate and to try to solve. In doing so, it is vital we come together as a Government, not as Democrats versus Republicans, or Congress versus the White House, but as one Government and one Nation. As best we can, we should work together, consult each other, debate the issues forthrightly and with strength of purpose, and then come to agreement on how to solve the problems that confront us. One of the reasons this issue is so important is because the judges we confirm over the next few years will help decide whether acts of Congress will stand or will be struck down. They will decide how far the law will go to protect the safety and rights of the American people. They will have the power to limit or expand civil rights protections. They will have great leeway to interpret the laws protecting or limiting a woman's right to choose. They will be able to expand or limit gun control laws, laws against child pornography, campaign finance laws, and many more. In a real sense, these judges will have as much power, or more, than any of us in this body. Clearly, the court with the biggest impact will be the Supreme Court. But the District of Columbia Circuit Court is a close second and is often cited as the most powerful court in the Nation. It is no coincidence that the DC Circuit has produced more Supreme Court Justices than any other circuit. Three of the nine current Justices--Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Ginsburg sat on the DC Circuit. In fact, it is hard to overstate the importance of an appointment to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals and particularly the DC Circuit. The Supreme Court of the United States is our Nation's court of last resort. But it heard less than 80 cases in the 2000-2001 session. In contrast, the Federal courts of appeal considered over 27,000 cases during the same period. For so many of the legal injuries for which people seek redress, the courts of appeal are the last stop, the ultimate decisionmaker. And the DC Circuit is the most important of all circuit courts because it is the court that most closely oversees the actions of Federal agencies; actions that have real, everyday impact on the lives of all Americans. The DC Circuit reviews appeals regarding decisions by the Federal Communications Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Election Commission, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Endangered Species Act, and the Environmental Protection Act, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Superfund, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and countless other agencies and statutes. Because the Supreme Court reviews so few cases, the DC Circuit essentially has the last say on whether decisions by these agencies will stand or will not stand. In recent years, the DC Circuit has become a hostile forum for environmental protections. Since 1990, the DC Circuit has struck down or hindered a long list of crucial environmental protections, including clean air protections for soot and smog, habitat protection under the Endangered Species Act, clean water protection for millions of acres of wetlands, fuel efficiency standards known as CAFE standards, designation of sites on the Superfund National Priorities List, and guidelines on treatment of petroleum wastewater. As Senator Kennedy pointed out in Miguel Estrada's hearing, the recent case of Maryland/DC/Delaware Broadcasters Association v. the FCC, the DC Circuit found a portion of the FCC's equal opportunity policy unconstitutional. Specifically, the court struck down a policy of broad outreach for minority broadcasters. This decision, right or wrong, will have a significant impact on the ability of the FCC to encourage minority participation in the broadcast industry. Incidentally, Mr. Estrada essentially refused to comment on this case when asked to do so. Steffan v. Perry involved a young man at the U.S. Naval academy, Joseph Steffan, who admitted to two of his classmates that he was gay, although he never admitted actually performing any homosexual acts. Steffan was discharged under Department of Defense regulations indicating that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Steffan argued his dismissal was impermissible, as it was based on status--being gay--not conduct. The DC Circuit held, in 1994, that the Defense Department regulations were permissible, however, and that the Steffan dismissal would stand. I could go on and on with cases--United States v. Bailey, for instance. Or AKA v. Washington Hospital Center, where the court ruled in favor of an orderly who, after 19 years of work, was forced to have heart surgery and who was then denied the right to transfer to another job within the hospital that would not require the same level of physical activity. The District of Columbia Circuit is also the court that most often reviews terrorism cases on appeal. All in all, it is quite clear that the District of Columbia Circuit is constantly at the center of complex key issues of the day. Currently, there is a delicate balance on this court. There are four Republican appointees, four Democratic appointees, and four vacancies. Therefore, this nominee effectively tilts the balance on that court. That is why many of us believe it is so important to learn how this nominee thinks, what his judicial temperament would be, and so on. During the last several years of the Clinton administration, two highly qualified Clinton nominees were blocked permanently. Some believe its purpose was to initiate a concerted, planned effort to keep vacancies open on that court so they could be filled with conservatives in the event of a Republican President. When President Bush took office, he sent us two nominees for the district circuit. One of them is Miguel Estrada. I don't believe it is appropriate for us to simply block all nominees to the District of Columbia Circuit in retaliation for that having been done to Democratic nominees. That is not why I am here today. But at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that this important circuit is now so closely divided. In deciding whether to confirm a given nominee to such a delicately balanced court, we must ensure that the judges we send to the court can administer the law fairly and impartially. That is the case before us today: Can Miguel Estrada administer the law fairly and impartially? We have before us a 41-year-old nominee about whom we know very little. To properly discharge our constitutionally derived advise and consent function, the Members of the Senate must be given enough information to make the right decision about a given nominee. In this case, I have heard many comments on this nominee as a very bright but ideologically driven young attorney, one who would put his beliefs ahead of the law if confirmed to the Federal bench. So I want to try to figure out whether or not that is true. Many who knew him, know him, have supervised him, or have spoken to him believe strongly that he does not have the temperament or impartiality necessary to fairly administer the law. My office has received literally thousands of calls about this nomination--more than 7,900 phone calls, to be exact. Fewer than 300 of those 7,900 calls were in favor of Miguel Estrada's nomination. To counteract serious concerns from those who know him and from those whom we represent, we need evidence that would contradict these opinions. Quite frankly, we do not have that evidence. Miguel Estrada has never been a judge. So we have no record of judicial decision-making to examine. This is not dispositive in itself, but it is the first area where we find no record to help us in our decision. Mr. Estrada is not a prolific writer. So we have no real record of writing to examine. Again, this alone would not be dispositive, but it is strike 2 in terms of where we can get information about this nominee. We have not been granted access to the memos he wrote at the Department of Justice. So we can only take the word of the man who supervised him that those memos were ideologically driven and that he could not be trusted. Mr. Estrada refused to adequately participate in his own confirmation hearings, which I will comment on as a great surprise to me and the reason I changed my view. So we have no real answers to our questions. Let me expand on this last point because I think it is instructive to examine and contrast our experience with Mr. Estrada and our experience with one other nominee. At last week's markup, I was struck by the lack of information about this nominee. Yet, as I said, I liked him very much when I met with him personally. But I was startled by his performance at the public hearing. So I got the transcripts, and I reread the transcripts to try to see if there was anything I missed--something I could zero in on that would let me know he would in fact be fair and impartial. What came to my mind was the real contrast with another nominee. That nominee is a man by the name of Jeffrey Sutton. He also was controversial. The disabilities community had a lot of concerns about him. But Mr. Sutton at his hearing answered every question put to him intelligently, in a fulsome way, and I thought forthrightly. So I could tell how he would act as an appellate court judge. The committee was able to gauge his intelligence, his manner of thinking, and we can use that back-and-forth to help us predict whether Mr. Sutton would be a good and fair judge or whether he would skew outcomes of cases to meet his own ideological goals. Mr. Estrada, on the other hand, did his best to keep from putting himself on the record on any issue of real substance. For instance, when Senator Schumer asked Mr. Estrada to name three Supreme Court cases in the last 40 years with which he disagreed, Mr. Estrada simply refused to answer. When I asked him whether he believed Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, he declined to answer on the basis that he had not done what the ``judicial function would require'' to determine whether the Court correctly decided the case. When Senator Leahy asked him what he thought of the decision in Romer v. Evans, a case involving discrimination against homosexuals, Estrada responded ``I can't know because I was not a judge in the case.'' When Senator Kennedy asked Mr. Estrada a written question about a union retaliation case decided by the DC Circuit in 2001 and reversed by the Supreme Court last term, Estrada responded ``Although I have read the Supreme Court's opinion . . . I have not read the briefs in the case, was not present at the oral argument, and have not independently researched the issue decided by the Court. For those reasons, I am not in a position to know how I might have resolved the issue . . . nor am I in a position to answer the question whether the Supreme Court acted appropriately.'' When Senator Kennedy asked him in writing whether another case involving diversity outreach had been decided correctly, Estrada again fell back on the argument that because he had not heard oral arguments and had not read the briefs, he could not answer. When Senator Kennedy asked Estrada about yet another Supreme Court case, American Trucking v. EPA, where the Supreme Court reversed the District of Columbia Circuit, Estrada again fell back on the argument that he had not been present for oral arguments and could not, therefore, comment on whether the case had been correctly decided. That kind of answer makes it truly difficult to get a sense of where a nominee is coming from in terms of thoughtful process, analysis, and legal expertise. When it comes to the most important circuit court in the Nation and there is no record and there is no writing, the Senate of the United States is entitled to know these answers. It strains credibility that a nominee for the circuit court of appeals would still have no opinion on whether a case such as Roe was correctly decided or whether any case in the last 40 years was incorrectly decided. Finally, it is troubling to get these answers from a nominee about whom we know so little and who is nominated to a court that will decide so much for so many. Taken as a whole, I could not, in good conscience, vote for this nominee, with so little information, recommending him to such an important lifetime appointment. And I cannot help but wonder: Why didn't the President appoint him to a District court? He is younger than my daughter. Give him an opportunity to produce a record and then move him on to an appellate court when that record could, in fact, be examined. A few days after I cast my committee vote against Mr. Estrada, White House Counsel Al Gonzales sent a letter addressed to me personally criticizing my vote and asking me to reconsider. Because Judge Gonzales has made the letter available to others, and it has now appeared in the press, I find it necessary that I correct the record. And I would like to do so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, dated February 3, 2003, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this legislation today with Senator Boxer to allow the National Park Service to extend the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, GGNRA, by acquiring critical natural landscapes and scenic vistas. Last year, this bill was successfully passed out of the Senate, but was not passed by the House before the 107th Congress adjourned. This bill meets two distinct needs in California by adding 4,700 acres of pristine natural land to the boundary of the Golden Golden Gate Recreation Area, GGNRA, and by extending the Golden Gate National Recreational Area, GGNRA, Advisory Commission for ten more years. A key component of this legislation is that about half of the total cost of purchasing these lands will be donated by the local community. This legislation specifically provides that all land transactions involve a willing seller and willing buyer. Furthermore, this bill has the strong support of the local environmental and preservation groups, the Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission, and the National Park Service. I know of no opposition to this bill. The three Marin County properties lie in the Marin headlands. Preservation of these lands will protect habitat, ridge-top trails and scenic views of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The city of San Francisco would like to donate to the Federal Government the San Francisco land along the Pacific coastline, and has authorized $100,000 for the restoration of the site. The addition of the Rancho Corral de Tierra property will protect sweeping views of the San Mateo Coast and ensure the protection of rich farmland, several miles of public trails, and an incredible array of wildlife and vegetation. All or part of four watersheds, and several endangered species such as the peregrine falcon, San Bruno elfin butterfly, San Francisco garter snake and the red-legged grog. Moreover, due to the coastal marine influence and dramatic altitude changes, plants grow on the property that are found nowhere else in the world. The second component of this bill extends the advisory commission of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for ten more years. This commission has an active committee that represents a wide range of user groups from bicyclists to bird watchers to outdoor enthusiasts. It provides a vital communications link between the Park Service and the surrounding communities that enjoy the attractions that this national site has to offer. Without this commission, the Park Service would be hard pressed to provide the same level of service and attention to the broad interests and diverse communities that it serves. I continue to be a strong advocate for public involvement in Park Service decisions. I believe that this commission has been essential in ensuring that the Park Service upholds its commitment to allow community participation in its decision making process, particularly when it comes to contentious issues. California's national parks are truly invaluable and the park that this bill supports offers an opportunity for visitors and residents to enjoy unique national habitats and open spaces. This legislation continues the legacy that enables the Park Service and the community to work together, not only to protect the environment, but also the interests of the nearby communities. This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Tom Lantos plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this legislation today with Senator Boxer to allow the National Park Service to extend the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, GGNRA, by acquiring critical natural landscapes and scenic vistas. Last year, this bill was successfully passed out of the Senate, but was not passed by the House before the 107th Congress adjourned. This bill meets two distinct needs in California by adding 4,700 acres of pristine natural land to the boundary of the Golden Golden Gate Recreation Area, GGNRA, and by extending the Golden Gate National Recreational Area, GGNRA, Advisory Commission for ten more years. A key component of this legislation is that about half of the total cost of purchasing these lands will be donated by the local community. This legislation specifically provides that all land transactions involve a willing seller and willing buyer. Furthermore, this bill has the strong support of the local environmental and preservation groups, the Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission, and the National Park Service. I know of no opposition to this bill. The three Marin County properties lie in the Marin headlands. Preservation of these lands will protect habitat, ridge-top trails and scenic views of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The city of San Francisco would like to donate to the Federal Government the San Francisco land along the Pacific coastline, and has authorized $100,000 for the restoration of the site. The addition of the Rancho Corral de Tierra property will protect sweeping views of the San Mateo Coast and ensure the protection of rich farmland, several miles of public trails, and an incredible array of wildlife and vegetation. All or part of four watersheds, and several endangered species such as the peregrine falcon, San Bruno elfin butterfly, San Francisco garter snake and the red-legged grog. Moreover, due to the coastal marine influence and dramatic altitude changes, plants grow on the property that are found nowhere else in the world. The second component of this bill extends the advisory commission of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for ten more years. This commission has an active committee that represents a wide range of user groups from bicyclists to bird watchers to outdoor enthusiasts. It provides a vital communications link between the Park Service and the surrounding communities that enjoy the attractions that this national site has to offer. Without this commission, the Park Service would be hard pressed to provide the same level of service and attention to the broad interests and diverse communities that it serves. I continue to be a strong advocate for public involvement in Park Service decisions. I believe that this commission has been essential in ensuring that the Park Service upholds its commitment to allow community participation in its decision making process, particularly when it comes to contentious issues. California's national parks are truly invaluable and the park that this bill supports offers an opportunity for visitors and residents to enjoy unique national habitats and open spaces. This legislation continues the legacy that enables the Park Service and the community to work together, not only to protect the environment, but also the interests of the nearby communities. This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Tom Lantos plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 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 commemorate the lives of the seven astronauts who gave their lives Saturday when the spacecraft Columbia was lost as it returned to Earth. The names of those manning the shuttle will be ingrained in our minds and in our hearts: CDR Rick Husband, CDR William McCool, LTC Michael Anderson, CDR Laurel Clark, CAPT David Brown, Dr. Kalpana Chawla, and COL Ilan Ramon, of the Israeli Air Force. The crew of the Columbia shared a love of flying and a sense of adventure that spurred each to strive for excellence and reach for space. CDR Rick Husband knew from the time he was 4 years old and watched his first shuttle launch that he wanted to be an astronaut. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Force and attended pilot training at Vance Air Force Base in Oklahoma. He later served as a test pilot for all five models of the F-15. Commander Husband logged more than 3,800 hours of flight time in more than 40 types of aircraft. Commander Husband studied mechanical engineering at Fresno State University in California through an extension program at nearby Edwards Air Force Base. On the flight, Commander Husband carried a Fresno State Bulldogs sweatshirt, as a memento. He graduated with a master's degree in 1990. Four years later, NASA selected Husband as an astronaut candidate. He leaves behind his wife, and his two children. Born in San Diego, CA, CDR William McCool was the son of a Navy and Marine aviator who built model airplanes as a youngster. Commander McCool studied aerospace engineering at the U.S. Naval Academy, and was elected captain of the cross-country running team his senior year. He graduated second in his class from the Naval Academy. Commander McCool received a master's degree in computer science from the University of Maryland in 1985 and a master's in aeronautical engineering at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in 1992. He attended flight school in Pensacola, FL, and worked as a test pilot at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in southern Maryland. Commander McCool leaves behind a wife and two children. LTC Michael Anderson always dreamed of space flight and once said that he could not remember a time when he did not want to be an astronaut. He graduated from the University of Washington in 1981 with a degree in physics and astronomy and, following in his father's footsteps, was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Force. While stationed at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska in 1990, Anderson earned a master's degree in physics from Omaha's Creighton University. In 1994, he was selected to join NASA as a potential future astronaut. In January 1998, he made his first flight, aboard the space shuttle Endeavour, traveling 3.6 million miles during 138 orbits of the Earth to reach the Mir space station. LTC Michael Anderson leaves behind his wife and two daughters. CDR Laurel Clark always excelled at school, and her classmates remember her for her fun-loving and adventurous spirit. After Commander Clark graduated from the University of Wisconsin- Madison, she joined the Navy to pay her way through medical school, but stayed with the Navy for the series of adventures it offered her in her career. While in the Navy, Commander Clark became a submarine medical officer, dove with Navy SEALS in Scotland, and earned her flight surgeon's wings before finally applying to NASA for astronaut training. While orbiting the Earth, Commander Clark remarked on the beauty of watching sunsets from space. She leaves behind her husband and her son. CAPT David Brown loved to fly kites as a child, and would gaze at the stars with friends from a backyard telescope. Captain Brown grew up in Arlington, VA, and earned a bachelor's degree in biology from the College of William and Mary, where he worked two jobs so he could take flying lessons. He then earned a medical degree from Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, before joining the Navy. Captain Brown served as a flight surgeon in the Navy and joined NASA in 1996. His family and friends remember him as a person who ``grabbed life,'' saying that he could and did accomplish anything he set out to do. Dr. Kalpana Chawla fell in love with the idea of flying as a young girl in India. She graduated from the Tagore Bal Niketan School in her small hometown of Karnal and then got a bachelor's degree in aeronautical engineering from Punjab Engineering College. She left India for the United States, earning a master's degree from the University of Texas and a doctorate in aerospace engineering from the University of Colorado. Dr. Chawla then worked as a scientist at the NASA Ames research laboratory in California before joining the astronaut program in 1995. Dr. Chawla was a member of the West Valley Flying Club in Palo Alto who loved doing aerial acrobatics over the Bay Area. She leaves behind her husband. COL Ilan Ramon was a bona fide combat hero in Israel, flying missions in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and the Lebanon war in 1982. In recent days, he lifted the spirits of his country, becoming a national hero as the first Israeli in space. As a pilot, Colonel Ramon clocked more than 4,000 hours in combat aircraft, and was an F-16 squadron commander. Aboard the Columbia, one of Ramon's scientific experiments involved tracking sandstorms in the Sahara Desert, and studying their impact on climate and environment. He leaves behind his wife and four children. Each of the astronauts knew the risks involved in space flight. But they took those risks willingly in order to follow their dreams, knowing that their mission was a noble one of science and discovery. What remains for us, as a nation, is to determine the cause of this tragedy, make adjustments so that it will not happen again, and continue the exploration of space. NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe has already assigned several internal units to investigate the loss of the Columbia, including a ``Mishap Response Team'' and a ``Contingency Action Team.'' In addition, Administrator O'Keefe announced the formation of an independent board led by Harold W. Gehman, who cochaired the probe of the October 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. I think that the way NASA has acted in the past few days is a marked improvement to the way the investigation into the 1986 Challenger explosion was handled. Information has been disseminated quickly, which gives me hope that a fair and prompt investigation will yield the causes for the loss of the Columbia. The space program must continue. The American legacy is filled with stories of exploration, and the desire to push new frontiers to the limit. There is so much to learn from space. This tragedy will not stifle the desire to acquire all the potential knowledge we could gain as a country, and as a planet, from exploration beyond Earth. The risks, however, will always be present. In a way, space exploration means continually breaking new ground, and taking those risks. The hardest part of these losses, is the human loss. The astronauts aboard the Columbia were men and women at their prime. They put their hearts and souls into this mission, were the best and brightest of their peers, and still this catastrophe befell them. My heart goes out to the families that the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia left behind. As we search for the reasons this tragedy occurred, it cannot be forgotten that each member was a son or daughter, a mother or father, a brother or sister, a dear friend. The thoughts and prayers of the American people, and of the world, are with them as they endure the pain of this loss. The crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia embodied the human desire to explore, to reach, and to dream. Their courage, idealism, and enthusiasm for discovery are hallmarks of the American spirit which should be remembered and celebrated, even as we grieve their loss. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Snowe, Collins, Cantwell, Corzine, Dodd, Durbin, Jeffords, Leahy, Murray, Reed, Clinton, and Schumer in introducing legislation to increase Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency, CAFE, Standards for SUVs and other light duty trucks. This bill will close the ``SUV Loophole,'' and require that SUVs meet the same fuel efficiency standards as passenger cars by 2011. Simply put, this legislation is the single most important step the United States can take to limit dependence on foreign oil and better protect our environment. If implemented, 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. Save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs. 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. The bill we are introducing today would change that, SUVs and other light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements by 2011 that passenger cars meet today. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, has proposed phasing in an increase in fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks under the following schedule: by 2005, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 21.0 miles per gallon; by 2006, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 21.6 miles per gallon; and by 2007, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 22.2 miles per gallon. Last year, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs and light trucks. And earlier this month, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel economy standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into effect by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an interview with Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here is better fuel economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without compromising safety or American jobs,'' he said. With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically feasible over the next decade or so: by 2008, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 23.5 miles per gallon; by 2009, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 24.8 miles per gallon; by 2010, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 26.1 miles per gallon, by 2011, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 27.5 miles per gallon. This legislation would do two other things: 1. It would mandate that by 2007 the average fuel economy of the new vehicles comprising the Federal fleet must be 3 miles per gallon higher than the baseline average fuel economy for that class. And by 2010, the average fuel economy of the new federal vehicles must be 6 miles per gallon higher than the baseline average fuel economy for that class. 2. The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards. Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore. We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against 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. The single most effective action our nation can take to limit reliance on foreign oil and reduce global warming is to increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles. The simplest way to do this is to simply bring the fuel efficiency standards for light trucks and sport utility vehicles, SUVs, into conformance with other passenger vehicles. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.