Dianne Feinstein

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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as an appropriator, I come to the floor today to express my opposition to the omnibus appropriations bill. The $385 billion omnibus appropriations bill cuts almost $10 billion from what the Senate Appropriations Committee approved last year. On top of these draconian cuts, the bill before us includes a 2.9 percent across-the-board cut, to non-military programs, and will affect critical programs such as homeland security, education, and job training. This bill is a major mistake and represents a short-sided approach to solving our Nation's problems. What is happening is an administration's effort to starve domestic programs in order to save dollars for a $674 billion tax cut. If this effort is successful, we will see interest rates rise, the deficit balloon, and a 10-year cumulative deficit of $2 to 3 trillion. Americans don't know it yet but soon will learn that this bill makes a house of cards out of homeland security, which loses $1 billion which was already requested, authorized, and appropriated. How many Americans know that this bill will likely cut 1,175 FBI agents, 490 food safety engineers, and 1,600 customs inspectors who are vital if we are to protect our homeland from contraband and those that would do us harm. How many Americans know that the Head Start cut of $107 million could prevent 2700 youngsters from a Head Start experience, or leave 224,000 needy individuals without the meals provided by WIC, or 230,000 veterans without medical services. To make matters worse, this bill is being offered at a time when our Nation continues to face significant challenges in protecting homeland security, increasing school achievement, and strengthening our work force. Essentially what this bill does is cut the money from a number of critical projects so this body can pass a tax cut of $674 billion, which will lead to a $2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Every day this body is faced with tough choices. But in my decade in the Senate, I believe this bill represents one of the worst pieces of legislation to pass this Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his comments. He certainly is one who does know about war, and I believe he also believes that war should be a last resort. I also thank the distinguished Senators from West Virginia and from Massachusetts for introducing this legislation which I have decided to be a cosponsor. Because of my support for the resolution which gave the President authorization for use of force, I felt I probably should come to the floor and explain my rationale for supporting the resolution offered by the Senator from West Virginia. Essentially, Hans Blix's report Monday to the Security Council made it clear that, although there has been progress, Iraq is not fully living up to its obligations, nor is it fully cooperating. Then the President, in last night's State of the Union Message, made clear, I think, some outstanding questions. The first question is: What has Iraq done with 500 tons of Sarin, mustard gas precursor chemicals, and VX nerve agents? That tonnage is missing. It has not been declared. It has not been revealed or has not been found. The second question is: What has really happened to the 8,500 liters of anthrax which Iraq has stated it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991? But it cannot document that. And third, what of the 650 kilograms of bacterial growth media? Those are critical items. These are key and serious issues the answers to which clearly provide the evidence as to whether Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons. The fourth item is the U-2 plane. The United Nations, as we all know, has access to a U-2 plane to gather intelligence. However, Iraq has refused to provide it safe overflight. This remains another issue of major non-cooperation. So the administration is correct in saying that Iraq needs to be immediately forthcoming and immediately cooperative with the inspectors. These issues need to be resolved. These are mega issues from anyone's point of view. As long as the inspectors believe there is sufficient access and as long as Iraq has said, specifically Tariq Aziz, that Iraq will even offer greater cooperation, I would say there ought to be a period of time where Iraq provides to the world and to the inspectors, the answers to these questions. I think it is vital. If Iraq is found to pose an imminent threat to the United States, then clearly we have to take action--with others I hope, if we can. But right now that is not the case. If, indeed, after consultations with the Security Council, the administration has clear evidence that Iraq is continuing an illegal program to produce chemical and biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, or possesses these weapons, the time has really come to make it public. What the President did, in my view, was present very clearly, not only to the Congress of the United States but to the entire world, significant questions that need to be immediately addressed. Iraq must, in fact, step up to the plate. The reason I believe this resolution--which essentially asks for time for inspections to continue, essentially urges a second vote at the Security Council--is right is because I believe this situation must stand on its own. The degree of threat and the degree of violation must be separately evaluated. But it is also part of a much bigger scenario and I want to spend time discussing that scenario here today. I believe America's national security policy stands at a crossroads. I believe in the wake of 9/11, last year was fundamental in terms of the administration's articulation of what constitutes, to my mind, a brand new approach to foreign policy by the United States. Within about 8 months last year, the administration put out three separate documents. One of them was the National Security Strategy. The second was the Nuclear Posture Review. The third was the Doctrine of Preemption as represented in the President's speech at West Point. Although individually each may appear innocuous, taken together these documents are revolutionary. They posit a world in which the exercise of U.S. military power is the central organizing principle for international affairs in this new century. These documents, in fact, put forward a litany of ways in which the United States will make military activism and adventurism the basic tool for pursuing national security. First, the National Security Strategy quite pointedly moves the United States away from the concept of deterrence and, to a great extent, substitutes preemption in its place. Secondly, the administration's Nuclear Posture Review is extraordinarily provocative and dangerous. It blurs the line between the use of conventional and nuclear weapons. It suggests that certain events might compel the United States to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear states. And it calls for the development of a new generation of United States nuclear warheads, including ``mini- nukes.'' As was well documented in the press last year, the Review also discusses contingencies in which nuclear weapons might be used, including--and I quote--``a North Korean attack on South Korea or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan'' in which our adversaries do not necessarily use nuclear weapons first. The Review also addresses contingencies in which the United States might use nuclear weapons not in retaliation to a nuclear strike on the United States but to destroy enemy stocks of chemical or biological arms. Karl Rove was specifically asked that question on television on Sunday, and he did not answer the question. This Review also states that in setting requirements for nuclear strike capabilities, distinctions can be made among immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies, and that North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in these immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies. That is what makes what is being suggested here in Iraq--if you look at it, in its total expression--so troubling. The fact of the matter is that several of the nations cited in the Nuclear Posture Review's contingencies lack nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons against them would be constitute first use. Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the United States has agreed not to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state unless that country attacks the United States ``in alliance with a nuclear weapons state.'' And finally, the doctrine of Preemption--which we may be seeing for the time with Iraq--asserts a unilateral right for the United States to preempt a threat against our Nation's security. The doctrine says: [T]he United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. . . . We cannot let our enemies strike first. Further on: The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction-- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves. Taken at face value, this means the United States holds for itself the right to strike against another sovereign nation--wage war, if you will--even in the absence of a clear and present danger, an immediate threat or provocative action, but based solely on the perception of a sufficient threat. I deeply believe the administration's course in these areas stands in contrast to the successful bipartisan tradition of supporting a world ordered by law, with capable international institutions and reciprocal restraints on action. But the administration's emphasis on unilateral action, its dismissal of international law, treaties, and institutions, and its apparent focus on the military, especially as documented in the National Security Strategy, the doctrine of Preemption and the Nuclear Posture Review, have created widespread resentment in the international community. I believe that these documents are the clearest statements in writing of the administration's long-term intentions, and I find them questionable and seriously disturbing. I must also tell you that Secretary Powell essentially said to me: Well, the Nuclear Posture Review really isn't operative. But, nonetheless, that is a doctrine that was released. It is serious in its ramifications. And the way this relates to Iraq is Iraq may be the first test case. If there are chemical and biological weapons--and there very well might be--does this then justify the use of a nuclear weapon to destroy them? The Nuclear Posture Review puts this on the table as an option. I think we need to know. So I ask these questions because I think they must be asked. And this is as good a time as any. If we are going to depend on the might of the sword to right wrongs, and in so doing risk committing our own wrongs, how are we better off? Coalitions, alliances, treaties, peacekeepers, inspection regimes-- all can and have been successful instruments in deterring adversaries, safeguarding American lives and U.S. security interests, and in resolving disputes, conflicts, and crises. So, Madam President, I remind this body that since World War II, there has been strong bipartisan support of a United States which has embraced international cooperation, not out of vulnerability or weakness but from a position of strength. House Joint Resolution 114, which I supported, and which authorizes the use of force against Iraq, specifically calls for a Presidential determination, that--and I quote--``reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' That finding, that determination, required by our resolution--for which 77 of us voted--has not yet been made. The evidence has not yet been laid out. The conclusions have not yet been drawn. What happened to the missing anthrax, the missing botulinum toxin, the missing VX nerve agent, the missing precursor chemicals, has not yet been determined. So that is why I come to the floor to say that it is critical that Iraq fully cooperate. It is critical that the inspectors be allowed to continue. If Iraq does not come clean, if Iraq does not submit the documentation as to the disposition of these chemicals and biological agents, then a legitimate conclusion can be drawn. But the reason I believe arms inspections must be given a chance to succeed and must continue is that I believe Iraq is just one small part of a larger sea- change in U.S. national security policy. It is a small part of the doctrine of Preemption, in which we move against a perceived or real threat. It is a small part of the Nuclear Posture Review, which says the United States would countenance the use of nuclear weapons against hard and deeply buried targets or biological or chemical weapons. So I believe that restraint is the proper course. It means that diplomacy is a prudent course, and it means that if international law-- if international bodies are to have any relevance in this new millennium--then the Security Council itself must respond. It is my deep belief that in the long run a foreign policy oriented toward cooperation and consultation will prove to be a more effective guarantor of U.S. national security than one of unilateral impulse and confrontation. Let us remember that we are currently engaged in a war on terror. It is a war that, if we are to win it, will require the cooperation of our friends and allies. There is no doubt in my mind that if the United States acts precipitously against Iraq, Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in the hinterland of Afghanistan are gathering today and are prepared to strike against our forces there and against the government of Hamid Karzai. And let us recall that beyond Iraq, there are a host of other challenges--the situation in the Middle East, the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula--that require international cooperation and action. So I am deeply concerned that if we are not careful in our approach to Iraq, if we do not present a just case, if we do not build an international coalition, we may well precipitate the very events we are trying to prevent. For example, a preemptive unilateral attack against a Muslim nation may well create a divide between the United States and the Muslim world so deep and so wide that it will bring with it negative consequences for decades, and unforeseen ones. I deeply believe that if Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, it poses a real threat to the entire international community; and there is no doubt, as the President pointed out, that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator. But at this point I believe it would be a tremendous mistake for the United States to unilaterally attack Iraq, and I urge the administration to go slow, let the inspectors do their work, and build that international coalition. War should be a last resort, not a foregone conclusion. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for a point of clarification. I was waiting in the queue. I have no objection to the Senator from Arizona going first. I ask unanimous consent that directly following Senator McCain, I be granted a privilege of the floor for 20 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last December I traveled to South Korea in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, as well as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I was able to visit and talk with U.S. troops and inspect facilities. I also toured the DMZ, a chilling legacy of a war many Americans have already forgotten. My visit could not have been more timely. The combination of saber- rattling in the North and anti-American protests in the South has made Korea front page news once again, as it faces its most complicated, and potentially explosive, crisis since the Korean war, 1950-53. The Korean peninsula is a land of stunning beauty and startling contrasts. Divided at the end of World War Il, following a long occupation by Japan, Korea continues to be one of the few reminders of what the world was like during the cold war. North Korea is a quasi-Stalinist state which, since its formal creation in 1948, has been run by two men, Kim Il Sung, who died in 1994, and his son, Kim Jong Il. Still almost entirely closed to the Western World, North Korea is a stark and isolated country marked by repression and poverty. Then, on the other side of the demilitarized zone, DMZ, perhaps the most tense border on Earth, is South Korea, a prosperous, Westernized democratic state. South Korea has been a staunch U.S. ally, and 37,000 U.S. troops have been stationed there for the past 40 years. Waged from 1950 to 1953, the Korean war ended in a virtual stalemate, with the peninsula still divided. Mr. President, 54,246 American men and women died during that war, and although there are no precise figures for Korean casualties, conservative estimates put the figure at approximately 4 million, the majority of these being civilians. On my trip to South Korea on the eve of the Presidential elections, I was surprised at the widespread anti-Americanism. Indeed, it was this issue, a growing sense that the United States was an imperial power indifferent to the needs and desires of the Korean people, that led Roh Moo Hyun to victory. It is difficult to appreciate the situation on the Korean peninsula without a visit to the demilitarized zone. I was taken there in a helicopter by Gen. Leon LaPorte, our four-star general in command, who pointed out North Korean troop concentrations. It is an alarming sight, and in many ways a step back in time. I then paid a visit to Panmunjum, a small village frozen in time, unchanged for half a century, which straddles the line separating North and South Korea. It was here that the Armistice ending the war was signed. Seventy percent of the 1.2 million man North Korean army is deployed along the DMZ, with enough heavy artillery to substantially damage Seoul and inflict casualties by the millions. And there are reports that nerve agents may also be deployed along the DMZ. Since my visit, the 800,000 forward-deployed North Korean troops have been placed on high alert and are prepared to move instantly. I believe the blame for precipitating this crisis lies squarely with North Korea, which clearly violated the Agreed Framework by beginning the surreptitious development of nuclear capacity. North Korea has also expelled all international inspectors and equipment; withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; restarted its plutonium processing plants; moved thousands of plutonium rods out of locked safe storage back into the nuclear production line; and is enriching uranium for nuclear weapon purposes. The government of Kim Jong Il has clearly placed its focus, not on feeding its people, but in developing its military, its missiles and its nuclear capability, all in defiance of treaties it has signed. Yet it also appears that our own handling of events on the Korean peninsula over the past 2 years, as well as our broader foreign policy rhetoric and statements have served, ironically, to fuel North Korea's paranoia and made the situation much more difficult to manage. Part of the problem has been our reluctance to endorse outgoing President Kim Dae Jung's ``Sunshine Policy,'' a diplomatic and economic effort by the South Korean government to ease tensions with the North. President Kim was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000 for precisely these initiatives. This move was perceived as a major humiliation in South Korea, helped set the stage for the rising tide of anti-Americanism, and was seen as a sign by the North that the administration was intent on a policy of isolation and confrontation. The North Korean situation offers no easy solution. We should keep the door open to the possibility of high level discussion. This ongoing crisis has also led many to rethink America's military presence on the Korean peninsula. Such periodic reviews are a good idea, but at the same time, I strongly believe that we should not do anything hastily. And although overshadowed by the crisis, much of my trip to South Korea focused on determining how to best finance the reconfiguration of U.S. military installations in South Korea. In the past 2 years alone, Congress has appropriated more than $500 million for military construction in South Korea. Much of this money has gone to improve barracks and to begin to implement a program known as the Korean Land Partnership Plan. This joint U.S.-Republic of Korea plan is designed to reduce the U.S. military ``footprint'' in Korea, while at the same time upgrade facilities for U.S. soldiers. This latter effort is particularly important, seeing that the living and working conditions are among the poorest in the entire U.S. military. Currently, the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea are scattered among 41 troop installations and 54 small camps and support sites. Under the Land Partnership Plan, the number of troop installations would be reduced to 23, a move that I support. When near the DMZ, I also visited Camp Casey, which is north of UijongBu and occupied by some 6300 military and 2500 civilians. More than any other site I saw, Camp Casey clearly demonstrated the need for improved living conditions at the soldier barracks. This is an issue that deserves immediate attention in the 108th Congress. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that the present crisis can be resolved. The United States should be more sensitive to our longstanding ally, South Korea, just as we should ensure that North Korea not be allowed to bully or intimidate its neighbors. Finally, I believe that my trip could not have been more timely. It has given me a fresh and immediate perspective on a land and a people for which I have great admiration. Since returning to Washington, I have met with both the South Korean National Security Adviser and their Ambassador to the United States. These talks, as well as those with my Senate colleagues and members of the Bush administration, give me confidence that we will be able to work well with President Roh, and that our bilateral relationship is strong enough to weather any short-term setbacks. Lastly, I would once again like to thank Ambassador Thomas Hubbard and Gen. Leon LaPorte for all their assistance while I was in South Korea.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this bill with Senator Harry Reid to increase the maximum loan cancellation amount available to credentialed teachers from $5,000 to $10,000. Educational research is clear: the single most important contributor to raising student achievement is having well-trained, high-caliber teachers in the classroom. And yet, far too many of our Nations' students are being taught by teachers who are not fully credentialed. This is especially true in low-income communities, where 22 percent of the teachers do not have credentials, more than 10 times the rate in wealthy communities. Because good teachers can make such a positive difference in the classroom, the ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' signed by President Bush last year, requires States to ensure that all teachers in our public schools are ``highly qualified'' by the 2005-2006 school year. This benchmark, which I believe was long overdue, is one that I applaud and was pleased to support last Congress. And while we have taken a bold first step by committing that our children will receive quality education from a licensed teacher, our work is far from over. We must now strengthen our commitment by helping States look for new ways to reach prospective teachers and build quality into their teacher preparation and development programs. Nationwide, it is estimated that approximately 2 million new teachers will need to be hired by 2009. This statistic, combined with the reality that roughly 200,000 veteran teachers will need to get their teaching certificate by the 2005 school year or lose their ability to teach, makes it clear that States have an ambitious requirement to fulfill in a short amount of time. But many States and school districts argue that they lack the resources necessary to fulfill these mandates on their own. The gravity of this problem is vividly depicted in California, where at least 300,000 new teachers will need to be hired and credentialed by 2008 to replace retirees and to accommodate the projected population growth at a time when the State is experiencing a drastic budget shortfall. All of this must happen during a time when the State is experiencing drastic budget shortfalls. The California State Board of Education projects that all of these changes will cost $6 billion. The $6 billion price tag does not include the costs associated with credentialing 32,000 emergency credentialed teachers, which is 11 percent of California's entire workforce, by the 2005 school year. This task alone would cost California $365 million. And none of these cost-estimates take into account the cost of credentialing teachers in other States with high percentages of the teaching work force not fully credentialed. While I strongly believe that States need to be held accountable for ensuring that all teachers are fully credentialed. But I also recognize that in order for States to meet this Federal mandate on time, many may need guidance and support from the Federal Government. This is not just a matter of holding those in the local school district or the local schoolhouse accountable; it is also a question of holding those in positions of public trust from the schoolhouse up to the statehouse, and to the U.S. Capitol, too, accountable for making sure that the job gets done. I believe that this bill takes a good first step in doing just that by creating a balance between State and Federal accountability and addressing two obstacles confronting school districts as they prepare for the 2005 academic year: lack of incentives to lure teachers into teacher credentialing programs early and lack of resources available to teaching institutions to improve and build upon their credentialing curriculum. I believe that the Federal Government should recognize the value of having a qualified teacher in a low income classroom by enhancing the loan cancellation benefits of credentialed teachers. Current law allows teachers to receive up to $5,000 of their student loans to be forgiven in exchange for 5 years of teaching in a low- income school. Unfortunately, few teachers have taken advantage of this program because of the low loan cancellation amount available to them in comparison to the length of service required for eligibility. To encourage recent graduates of teacher licensure programs to enter and remain in the teaching field, this bill doubles the maximum loan cancellation amount to $10,000 for credentialed teachers teaching for five years in a low income school. And while uncredentialed teachers would continue to be eligible for loan forgiveness available to all teachers under the current law, the enhanced benefits for uncredentialed teachers will expire on December 31, 2005, just in time for the mandated deadline set for all teachers to be fully licensed. The second element of my bill authorizes grants to institutions of higher education to create and expand credentialing programs. Funds would be made available to colleges and universities to develop and implement teacher preparation programs including curriculum development that focuses on credentialing teachers. I strongly believe that teachers desiring to become credentialed should have every resource available to them to do so. These components are meant to complement State programs already available to credentialed teachers, which aim to improve teacher quality and tenure. To California's credit, since the 1999-2000 school year, 5,000 emergency credentialed teachers have been successfully placed in State- backed teacher preparation programs. And the State is working to create and improve teacher preparation programs that include relevant course work, classroom training, and mentoring by a veteran teacher, with a goal of full credentialing. But this is not happening in every school district nationwide and it must, States and local school districts should work together to prioritize available funds to set up programs to ensure that every teacher within their district is adequately trained. States must continue to look for innovative ways to keep qualified teachers in the classroom, especially in low performing school districts, and funnel available Federal funds to local initiatives to get emergency certified teachers into credentialing programs. We as a Nation must continue to make providing quality education to our children a top priority. Passing legislation is just the first step. With the expected population growth and the need to replace teachers approaching retirement, States must act swiftly and aggressively to ensure that neither children nor teachers are left behind. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation that would give States and teachers the necessary resources to ensure that every teacher is a ``highly qualified'' teacher. Our Nation's students deserve nothing less.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise, along with Senator Grassley, Senator Corzine, and Senator Gregg to introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This bill addresses the growing tide of identity theft cases by requiring banks, credit bureaus, and other financial institutions to take some practical steps to protect sensitive personal information. What is identity theft? Identity theft occurs when one person uses another person's Social Security number, birth date, driver's license number, or other identifying information to obtain credit cards, car loans, phone plans or other services in the victim's name. The criminal literally assumes the identity of the victim for illicit gain. Identity theft has become the number one white collar crime of the new millennium, and Congress needs to make a major effort to protect Americans' personal information. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are victimized by identity theft each year. The personal losses as a result of these crimes are major. The average financial loss from an identity theft case is $17,000 and it takes a typical victim 18 months to restore his or her good credit. In some cases, victims are falsely saddled with criminal records or are denied loans and other valuable financial services. Identity theft is frighteningly easy to commit. One of my constituents, Kim Bradbury of Castro Valley, knows this too well. Kim reported that an identity thief obtained a credit card in her name through the Internet in less than 60 seconds. The false application only had her Social Security number and birth date correct. Kim only found out she was an identity theft victim when a representative of a telemarketing company called her at home while she was feeding her one-year child. The representative told her that someone with a different address had applied for a credit card in Kim's name. In Kim's case, it appears that her Social Security number was stolen by a fellow employee who also had stolen the identities of several dozen company employees. The thief ultimately stole over $100,000 in merchandise, including 20 cell phone accounts, via identity fraud. All indicators suggest that the crime continues to grow at an alarming rate. Just two months ago, Federal prosecutors announced the largest single identity theft case in U.S. history. Three individuals allegedly sold the credit and personal information of 30,000 people. At one national credit reporting agency, consumers requested 53 percent more fraud alerts in fiscal year 2001 than fiscal year 2000. As of December 2001, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, Identity Theft Clearinghouse averaged more than 3,000 call-ins per week, a seven-fold increase since the clearinghouse began operation in November 1999. The Identity Theft Prevention Act offers a series of practical steps to cut-off criminal access to sensitive consumer data. No. 1, Credit card number truncation on receipts: first, the Identity Theft Prevention Act would require all new credit-card machines to truncate any credit card number printed on a customer receipt. Thus, when a store gives a customer a receipt from a credit card purchase, only the last five digits of the credit card number will show. This prevents identity thieves from stealing credit card numbers by retrieving discarded receipts. Existing machines would have to be reprogrammed to truncate credit card numbers on receipts within four years after enactment of the legislation. No. 2, Fraud alerts: the bill would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to impose a fine on credit issuers who issue new credit to identity thieves despite the presence of a fraud alert on the consumer's credit file. Too many credit card issuers are granting new cards without adequately verifying the identity of the applicant. Putting some teeth into fraud alerts will curb irresponsible granting of credit. No. 3, Free credit reports: third, the legislation would entitle each consumer to one free credit report per year. Currently six States, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont, have laws entitling consumers to one free credit report per year from the national credit bureaus. According to identity theft victim advocates, identity theft is detected much earlier if consumers actively monitor their credit files. The cost of credit reports is a major obstacle to their use by consumers. No. 4, Change of address: finally, the bill requires a credit card company to notify consumers when an additional credit card is requested on an existing credit account within 30 days of an address change request. This provision addresses a common method of identity fraud where a criminal steals an individual's credit card number, and then obtains a duplicate card by informing the issuer of a change of address. The Identity Theft Prevention Act requires financial institutions to implement needed precautions to prevent identity fraud and protect a person's good name. Verifying a credit applicant's address, complying with ``fraud alerts'', and truncating credit numbers on receipts are all measures that will make it harder for criminals to engage in identity fraud. It is appropriate and necessary for financial institutions to take these steps. These companies have a responsibility to prevent fraudsters from using their services to harm the good name of other citizens. Morever, in this complex, information-driven society, consumers simply can't protect their good name on their own. I strongly believe this legislation will provide desperately needed tools to combat identity theft, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise to reintroduce, along with Senator Judd Gregg, the Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act. This is critical legislation, especially in light of the increasing number of cases of identity theft. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, this week announced that identity theft is the Nation's top consumer fraud complaint for the third consecutive year. Last year, this legislation was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Finance Committee was set to vote on it as well, but it got entangled in an unrelated, amendment. It is my hope that Congress will approve this legislation this year, so that we can begin to protect one of the most fundamental rights of all Americans. I believe all Americans should have the right to: control how their personal identifying information is used. Keep their Social Security number out of the public domain. Limit disclosure by public agencies of personal information; and I also believe that Americans have the right to expect that businesses and government agencies will protect your personal information held within their databases. Lately, however, these rights have been seriously compromised by thieves who are stealing American's identity's in record numbers. Just in the last year, identity theft cases have doubled nationwide. American consumers filed approximately 163,000 identity theft complaints with the FTC in 2002. Fully 43 percent of all the complaints the FTC receives are about identity theft. My own State, California, has more victims than any other State. The FTC recorded 30,738 identity theft cases last year from California consumers alone. Senator Gregg and I are reintroducing our Social Security number protection bill because Social Security numbers are the keys thieves use to unlock and take over a person's identity. Identity thieves use Social Security numbers to: fraudulently obtain credit cards, access existing financial accounts, commit bank fraud, falsely obtain employment and government benefits; and create additional false identification documents, such as drivers' licenses. Sally Twentyman, for instance, had her identity stolen when a thief rifled through her mail and stole credit card renewal forms. The thief used her name and Social Security number to make $13,000 in cash advances and to open two additional credit card accounts in her name. Not surprisingly, reports of Social Security number misuse have risen lockstep with the growth in identity theft. Allegations of Social Security number fraud have increased by 600 percent over the past several years from 11,000 in 1998 to 73,000 in 2003. Social Security Number Prevention Act: The goal of this legislation is straightforward, to get Social Security numbers out of the public domain so that identity thieves can't access the number. First, this bill prohibits anyone from selling or displaying an individual's Social Security number to the general public without the individual's consent, but does permit legitimate business-to-business and business-to-government uses of the number. This practice occurs today. A stranger or stalker can buy your Social Security number off the Internet for a few dollars. In one troubling case, Christopher Jones, a twenty-five-year old employee at the University of North Carolina-Pembroke, stole approximately 3,000 Social Security numbers through his job handing out towels and other equipment at the university gym. In order to get equipment from Mr. Jones, students had to give him their Social Security numbers. Jones mined these numbers over several months and advertised the Social Security numbers for sale on eBay with an opening bid of $1.00 per number for a block of 1,000 numbers. One advertisement, for example, read ``100 (one hundred social Security # Numbers Obtain False Credit Cards Idenity Theft I Don't Care Bid Starts at a Dollar a Piece USPS Money Orders only all Different.'' Second, this legislation gives consumers the right to refuse to give out their Social Security numbers to companies that don't really need it. Companies, however, can still require Social Security numbers for purposes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, for background checks, if required by law, or if the number is necessary to verify identity or prevent fraud. Third, this legislation curbs the public display of Social Security numbers on government documents. Specifically, the bill removes Social Security numbers from government checks and driver's licenses. In addition, the bill prohibits governments entities from displaying Social Security numbers on public records that are posted on the Internet or in electronic media after the effective date of the act. I don't believe a complete stranger should not be able to get access to my Social Security number from my birth certificate or marriage license, especially just by logging onto the Internet! Finally, this legislation creates new penalties targeting the misuse of Social Security numbers. Specifically, the bill gives the Social Security Administration the authority to issue civil penalties of up to $5,000 for people who misuse Social Security numbers. The bill also creates a maximum five year prison sentence for anyone who obtains another person's Social Security number for purpose of locating or identifying that individual with the intent to physically harm that person. This legislation is fundamental to protecting the identities of American citizens. I look forward to working with Senator Gregg to secure its passage this year, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise to reintroduce, along with Senator Judd Gregg, the Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act. This is critical legislation, especially in light of the increasing number of cases of identity theft. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, this week announced that identity theft is the Nation's top consumer fraud complaint for the third consecutive year. Last year, this legislation was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Finance Committee was set to vote on it as well, but it got entangled in an unrelated, amendment. It is my hope that Congress will approve this legislation this year, so that we can begin to protect one of the most fundamental rights of all Americans. I believe all Americans should have the right to: control how their personal identifying information is used. Keep their Social Security number out of the public domain. Limit disclosure by public agencies of personal information; and I also believe that Americans have the right to expect that businesses and government agencies will protect your personal information held within their databases. Lately, however, these rights have been seriously compromised by thieves who are stealing American's identity's in record numbers. Just in the last year, identity theft cases have doubled nationwide. American consumers filed approximately 163,000 identity theft complaints with the FTC in 2002. Fully 43 percent of all the complaints the FTC receives are about identity theft. My own State, California, has more victims than any other State. The FTC recorded 30,738 identity theft cases last year from California consumers alone. Senator Gregg and I are reintroducing our Social Security number protection bill because Social Security numbers are the keys thieves use to unlock and take over a person's identity. Identity thieves use Social Security numbers to: fraudulently obtain credit cards, access existing financial accounts, commit bank fraud, falsely obtain employment and government benefits; and create additional false identification documents, such as drivers' licenses. Sally Twentyman, for instance, had her identity stolen when a thief rifled through her mail and stole credit card renewal forms. The thief used her name and Social Security number to make $13,000 in cash advances and to open two additional credit card accounts in her name. Not surprisingly, reports of Social Security number misuse have risen lockstep with the growth in identity theft. Allegations of Social Security number fraud have increased by 600 percent over the past several years from 11,000 in 1998 to 73,000 in 2003. Social Security Number Prevention Act: The goal of this legislation is straightforward, to get Social Security numbers out of the public domain so that identity thieves can't access the number. First, this bill prohibits anyone from selling or displaying an individual's Social Security number to the general public without the individual's consent, but does permit legitimate business-to-business and business-to-government uses of the number. This practice occurs today. A stranger or stalker can buy your Social Security number off the Internet for a few dollars. In one troubling case, Christopher Jones, a twenty-five-year old employee at the University of North Carolina-Pembroke, stole approximately 3,000 Social Security numbers through his job handing out towels and other equipment at the university gym. In order to get equipment from Mr. Jones, students had to give him their Social Security numbers. Jones mined these numbers over several months and advertised the Social Security numbers for sale on eBay with an opening bid of $1.00 per number for a block of 1,000 numbers. One advertisement, for example, read ``100 (one hundred social Security # Numbers Obtain False Credit Cards Idenity Theft I Don't Care Bid Starts at a Dollar a Piece USPS Money Orders only all Different.'' Second, this legislation gives consumers the right to refuse to give out their Social Security numbers to companies that don't really need it. Companies, however, can still require Social Security numbers for purposes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, for background checks, if required by law, or if the number is necessary to verify identity or prevent fraud. Third, this legislation curbs the public display of Social Security numbers on government documents. Specifically, the bill removes Social Security numbers from government checks and driver's licenses. In addition, the bill prohibits governments entities from displaying Social Security numbers on public records that are posted on the Internet or in electronic media after the effective date of the act. I don't believe a complete stranger should not be able to get access to my Social Security number from my birth certificate or marriage license, especially just by logging onto the Internet! Finally, this legislation creates new penalties targeting the misuse of Social Security numbers. Specifically, the bill gives the Social Security Administration the authority to issue civil penalties of up to $5,000 for people who misuse Social Security numbers. The bill also creates a maximum five year prison sentence for anyone who obtains another person's Social Security number for purpose of locating or identifying that individual with the intent to physically harm that person. This legislation is fundamental to protecting the identities of American citizens. I look forward to working with Senator Gregg to secure its passage this year, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this bill with Senator Harry Reid to increase the maximum loan cancellation amount available to credentialed teachers from $5,000 to $10,000. Educational research is clear: the single most important contributor to raising student achievement is having well-trained, high-caliber teachers in the classroom. And yet, far too many of our Nations' students are being taught by teachers who are not fully credentialed. This is especially true in low-income communities, where 22 percent of the teachers do not have credentials, more than 10 times the rate in wealthy communities. Because good teachers can make such a positive difference in the classroom, the ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' signed by President Bush last year, requires States to ensure that all teachers in our public schools are ``highly qualified'' by the 2005-2006 school year. This benchmark, which I believe was long overdue, is one that I applaud and was pleased to support last Congress. And while we have taken a bold first step by committing that our children will receive quality education from a licensed teacher, our work is far from over. We must now strengthen our commitment by helping States look for new ways to reach prospective teachers and build quality into their teacher preparation and development programs. Nationwide, it is estimated that approximately 2 million new teachers will need to be hired by 2009. This statistic, combined with the reality that roughly 200,000 veteran teachers will need to get their teaching certificate by the 2005 school year or lose their ability to teach, makes it clear that States have an ambitious requirement to fulfill in a short amount of time. But many States and school districts argue that they lack the resources necessary to fulfill these mandates on their own. The gravity of this problem is vividly depicted in California, where at least 300,000 new teachers will need to be hired and credentialed by 2008 to replace retirees and to accommodate the projected population growth at a time when the State is experiencing a drastic budget shortfall. All of this must happen during a time when the State is experiencing drastic budget shortfalls. The California State Board of Education projects that all of these changes will cost $6 billion. The $6 billion price tag does not include the costs associated with credentialing 32,000 emergency credentialed teachers, which is 11 percent of California's entire workforce, by the 2005 school year. This task alone would cost California $365 million. And none of these cost-estimates take into account the cost of credentialing teachers in other States with high percentages of the teaching work force not fully credentialed. While I strongly believe that States need to be held accountable for ensuring that all teachers are fully credentialed. But I also recognize that in order for States to meet this Federal mandate on time, many may need guidance and support from the Federal Government. This is not just a matter of holding those in the local school district or the local schoolhouse accountable; it is also a question of holding those in positions of public trust from the schoolhouse up to the statehouse, and to the U.S. Capitol, too, accountable for making sure that the job gets done. I believe that this bill takes a good first step in doing just that by creating a balance between State and Federal accountability and addressing two obstacles confronting school districts as they prepare for the 2005 academic year: lack of incentives to lure teachers into teacher credentialing programs early and lack of resources available to teaching institutions to improve and build upon their credentialing curriculum. I believe that the Federal Government should recognize the value of having a qualified teacher in a low income classroom by enhancing the loan cancellation benefits of credentialed teachers. Current law allows teachers to receive up to $5,000 of their student loans to be forgiven in exchange for 5 years of teaching in a low- income school. Unfortunately, few teachers have taken advantage of this program because of the low loan cancellation amount available to them in comparison to the length of service required for eligibility. To encourage recent graduates of teacher licensure programs to enter and remain in the teaching field, this bill doubles the maximum loan cancellation amount to $10,000 for credentialed teachers teaching for five years in a low income school. And while uncredentialed teachers would continue to be eligible for loan forgiveness available to all teachers under the current law, the enhanced benefits for uncredentialed teachers will expire on December 31, 2005, just in time for the mandated deadline set for all teachers to be fully licensed. The second element of my bill authorizes grants to institutions of higher education to create and expand credentialing programs. Funds would be made available to colleges and universities to develop and implement teacher preparation programs including curriculum development that focuses on credentialing teachers. I strongly believe that teachers desiring to become credentialed should have every resource available to them to do so. These components are meant to complement State programs already available to credentialed teachers, which aim to improve teacher quality and tenure. To California's credit, since the 1999-2000 school year, 5,000 emergency credentialed teachers have been successfully placed in State- backed teacher preparation programs. And the State is working to create and improve teacher preparation programs that include relevant course work, classroom training, and mentoring by a veteran teacher, with a goal of full credentialing. But this is not happening in every school district nationwide and it must, States and local school districts should work together to prioritize available funds to set up programs to ensure that every teacher within their district is adequately trained. States must continue to look for innovative ways to keep qualified teachers in the classroom, especially in low performing school districts, and funnel available Federal funds to local initiatives to get emergency certified teachers into credentialing programs. We as a Nation must continue to make providing quality education to our children a top priority. Passing legislation is just the first step. With the expected population growth and the need to replace teachers approaching retirement, States must act swiftly and aggressively to ensure that neither children nor teachers are left behind. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation that would give States and teachers the necessary resources to ensure that every teacher is a ``highly qualified'' teacher. Our Nation's students deserve nothing less.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise, along with Senator Grassley, Senator Corzine, and Senator Gregg to introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This bill addresses the growing tide of identity theft cases by requiring banks, credit bureaus, and other financial institutions to take some practical steps to protect sensitive personal information. What is identity theft? Identity theft occurs when one person uses another person's Social Security number, birth date, driver's license number, or other identifying information to obtain credit cards, car loans, phone plans or other services in the victim's name. The criminal literally assumes the identity of the victim for illicit gain. Identity theft has become the number one white collar crime of the new millennium, and Congress needs to make a major effort to protect Americans' personal information. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are victimized by identity theft each year. The personal losses as a result of these crimes are major. The average financial loss from an identity theft case is $17,000 and it takes a typical victim 18 months to restore his or her good credit. In some cases, victims are falsely saddled with criminal records or are denied loans and other valuable financial services. Identity theft is frighteningly easy to commit. One of my constituents, Kim Bradbury of Castro Valley, knows this too well. Kim reported that an identity thief obtained a credit card in her name through the Internet in less than 60 seconds. The false application only had her Social Security number and birth date correct. Kim only found out she was an identity theft victim when a representative of a telemarketing company called her at home while she was feeding her one-year child. The representative told her that someone with a different address had applied for a credit card in Kim's name. In Kim's case, it appears that her Social Security number was stolen by a fellow employee who also had stolen the identities of several dozen company employees. The thief ultimately stole over $100,000 in merchandise, including 20 cell phone accounts, via identity fraud. All indicators suggest that the crime continues to grow at an alarming rate. Just two months ago, Federal prosecutors announced the largest single identity theft case in U.S. history. Three individuals allegedly sold the credit and personal information of 30,000 people. At one national credit reporting agency, consumers requested 53 percent more fraud alerts in fiscal year 2001 than fiscal year 2000. As of December 2001, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, Identity Theft Clearinghouse averaged more than 3,000 call-ins per week, a seven-fold increase since the clearinghouse began operation in November 1999. The Identity Theft Prevention Act offers a series of practical steps to cut-off criminal access to sensitive consumer data. No. 1, Credit card number truncation on receipts: first, the Identity Theft Prevention Act would require all new credit-card machines to truncate any credit card number printed on a customer receipt. Thus, when a store gives a customer a receipt from a credit card purchase, only the last five digits of the credit card number will show. This prevents identity thieves from stealing credit card numbers by retrieving discarded receipts. Existing machines would have to be reprogrammed to truncate credit card numbers on receipts within four years after enactment of the legislation. No. 2, Fraud alerts: the bill would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to impose a fine on credit issuers who issue new credit to identity thieves despite the presence of a fraud alert on the consumer's credit file. Too many credit card issuers are granting new cards without adequately verifying the identity of the applicant. Putting some teeth into fraud alerts will curb irresponsible granting of credit. No. 3, Free credit reports: third, the legislation would entitle each consumer to one free credit report per year. Currently six States, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont, have laws entitling consumers to one free credit report per year from the national credit bureaus. According to identity theft victim advocates, identity theft is detected much earlier if consumers actively monitor their credit files. The cost of credit reports is a major obstacle to their use by consumers. No. 4, Change of address: finally, the bill requires a credit card company to notify consumers when an additional credit card is requested on an existing credit account within 30 days of an address change request. This provision addresses a common method of identity fraud where a criminal steals an individual's credit card number, and then obtains a duplicate card by informing the issuer of a change of address. The Identity Theft Prevention Act requires financial institutions to implement needed precautions to prevent identity fraud and protect a person's good name. Verifying a credit applicant's address, complying with ``fraud alerts'', and truncating credit numbers on receipts are all measures that will make it harder for criminals to engage in identity fraud. It is appropriate and necessary for financial institutions to take these steps. These companies have a responsibility to prevent fraudsters from using their services to harm the good name of other citizens. Morever, in this complex, information-driven society, consumers simply can't protect their good name on their own. I strongly believe this legislation will provide desperately needed tools to combat identity theft, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to give the National Guard an enhanced role in homeland security. I am pleased that Senators Bond, Leahy, Lieberman, Gregg, Murray, Johnson, Clinton, Breaux, and Feingold join me as cosponsors of the bill. In essence, the bill would permit each governor to create a homeland security activities plan for the National Guard in his or her State, and authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide oversight and funding for such plans. The legislation is modeled after the existing successful National Guard counterdrug program, which was established under 32 U.S.C. sect. 112. Under this program, the National Guard is used to provide support to law enforcement to help stop illegal drugs from being imported, manufactured, and distributed, and in supporting drug demand reduction programs. The bill is supported by the co-chairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus, the National Governors' Association, the Adjutants General Association of the United States, the National Guard Association of the United States, and National Guardsmen across the country. Giving the Guard an enhanced role in homeland security makes sense because the Guard connects local communities to the Federal Government, is located in almost every American community, and has the capabilities, legal authority, and structure to help respond to attacks on the homeland. In addition, such an enhanced role would return the National Guard more to what was envisioned by the founders of this country. Colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped win the Revolutionary War. And during the 19th century, the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican war, the early years of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. It was not until 1903 that Congress passed legislation to increase the role of the National Guard as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army Now, the National Guard has a dual Federal/State mission. In their role as State militias, Guard units are often activated for homeland duty under Title 32 and thus come under the command of the State governor. In this status, they are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally restricts law enforcement to civil authorities, and thus are used as the armed forces' primary provider of support to civil authorities. The National Guard's access to military command and control, discipline, training, and equipment also makes it well suited to coordinate with and aid police, fire, medical, and other emergency responders. The Army National Guard maintains over 3,000 armories around the Nation and the Air National Guard has 140 units throughout the United States. There are about 460,000 National Guard members that train throughout the year, 353,000 Army National Guard and 106,000 Air National Guard. The approximate numbers of National Guard in individual States run from about 1,000 to 21,000, and vary according to the population of the State and recruitment efforts. In light of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon as well as the October 2001 anthrax attacks on Congress and the media, many of us have come to believe that the National Guard should play a more central role in responding to terrorist attacks, particularly those with weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the Guard has already played an important role in helping respond to these attacks, not only at the site of the attacks but also at airports, around the Capitol, and elsewhere. For example, the National Guard currently has a number of Civil Support Teams that assess a suspected weapon of mass destruction event, advise first responders, and facilitate the assistance of additional military forces, if needed. The National Guard is well-suited to performing an enhanced homeland security mission for many reasons. These reasons include that the fact the Guard is already: deployed in communities around the country; integrated into existing local, State, and regional emergency response networks; has ties with key players in local, State, and Federal government; is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act while serving in Title 32 status and thus has maximum flexibility; is responsible for and experienced with homeland security missions, including air sovereignty, disaster relief, responding to suspected weapons of mass destruction events, and counterdrug operations; has existing physical, communications, and training infrastructure throughout the U.S.; has existing training facilities, distance learning training networks, and a number of highly skilled individuals who have left active forces; and helps preserve constitutional balance between State and Federal sovereign interests, given its unique dual State/Federal role. Moreover, Department of Defense reviews and reports, including the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review and Reserve Component Employment 2005 Study, have made clear that the National Guard should have an expanded role in homeland security. Other experts agree. The Hart-Rudman and Gilmore terrorism commissions as well as the recent Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force have recommended that the National Guard be given a more direct role in the war on terrorism. In sum, this legislation is a sensible, efficient way to make our country safer from terrorism. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday I gave an address to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, CA on America's role in the world. I ask unanimous consent to print my address in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to give the National Guard an enhanced role in homeland security. I am pleased that Senators Bond, Leahy, Lieberman, Gregg, Murray, Johnson, Clinton, Breaux, and Feingold join me as cosponsors of the bill. In essence, the bill would permit each governor to create a homeland security activities plan for the National Guard in his or her State, and authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide oversight and funding for such plans. The legislation is modeled after the existing successful National Guard counterdrug program, which was established under 32 U.S.C. sect. 112. Under this program, the National Guard is used to provide support to law enforcement to help stop illegal drugs from being imported, manufactured, and distributed, and in supporting drug demand reduction programs. The bill is supported by the co-chairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus, the National Governors' Association, the Adjutants General Association of the United States, the National Guard Association of the United States, and National Guardsmen across the country. Giving the Guard an enhanced role in homeland security makes sense because the Guard connects local communities to the Federal Government, is located in almost every American community, and has the capabilities, legal authority, and structure to help respond to attacks on the homeland. In addition, such an enhanced role would return the National Guard more to what was envisioned by the founders of this country. Colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped win the Revolutionary War. And during the 19th century, the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican war, the early years of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. It was not until 1903 that Congress passed legislation to increase the role of the National Guard as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army Now, the National Guard has a dual Federal/State mission. In their role as State militias, Guard units are often activated for homeland duty under Title 32 and thus come under the command of the State governor. In this status, they are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally restricts law enforcement to civil authorities, and thus are used as the armed forces' primary provider of support to civil authorities. The National Guard's access to military command and control, discipline, training, and equipment also makes it well suited to coordinate with and aid police, fire, medical, and other emergency responders. The Army National Guard maintains over 3,000 armories around the Nation and the Air National Guard has 140 units throughout the United States. There are about 460,000 National Guard members that train throughout the year, 353,000 Army National Guard and 106,000 Air National Guard. The approximate numbers of National Guard in individual States run from about 1,000 to 21,000, and vary according to the population of the State and recruitment efforts. In light of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon as well as the October 2001 anthrax attacks on Congress and the media, many of us have come to believe that the National Guard should play a more central role in responding to terrorist attacks, particularly those with weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the Guard has already played an important role in helping respond to these attacks, not only at the site of the attacks but also at airports, around the Capitol, and elsewhere. For example, the National Guard currently has a number of Civil Support Teams that assess a suspected weapon of mass destruction event, advise first responders, and facilitate the assistance of additional military forces, if needed. The National Guard is well-suited to performing an enhanced homeland security mission for many reasons. These reasons include that the fact the Guard is already: deployed in communities around the country; integrated into existing local, State, and regional emergency response networks; has ties with key players in local, State, and Federal government; is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act while serving in Title 32 status and thus has maximum flexibility; is responsible for and experienced with homeland security missions, including air sovereignty, disaster relief, responding to suspected weapons of mass destruction events, and counterdrug operations; has existing physical, communications, and training infrastructure throughout the U.S.; has existing training facilities, distance learning training networks, and a number of highly skilled individuals who have left active forces; and helps preserve constitutional balance between State and Federal sovereign interests, given its unique dual State/Federal role. Moreover, Department of Defense reviews and reports, including the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review and Reserve Component Employment 2005 Study, have made clear that the National Guard should have an expanded role in homeland security. Other experts agree. The Hart-Rudman and Gilmore terrorism commissions as well as the recent Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force have recommended that the National Guard be given a more direct role in the war on terrorism. In sum, this legislation is a sensible, efficient way to make our country safer from terrorism. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Tom Ridge to be Secretary of Homeland Security. I think that Mr. Ridge is an excellent choice for the job. If confirmed, Mr. Ridge will oversee the new Department of Homeland Security, the consolidation of more than two dozen agencies and offices that have been reorganized into a single agency with an overriding mission: protecting the United States from terrorist attack and responding to an attack should one occur. Unlike his current position in the White House, Mr. Ridge will have budget authority and will be accountable to Congress and the people. I introduced legislation with Senator Bob Graham on September 21, 2001, long before the Homeland Security Act was signed into law, to give him such authority. I believe that it is indispensable for him to do his job adequately. I applaud Mr. Ridge's willingness to accept the responsibility of leading the new Department. He will oversee and direct the largest Federal reorganization since the National Security Act of 1947. It is an enormous challenge. According to historians, James Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense after passage of the 1947 act, resigned after 2 years due to mental exhaustion caused by the difficulties of managing the new Department. Even with all of his energy and talent, Mr. Ridge will not be able to do it alone. We need to be sure that the Department of Homeland Security attracts and retains top people, people committed to ensuring homeland security. And we need to be sure that the department has the tools and resources it needs to protect us from and respond to terrorist attacks. It is hard to understate the importance of getting this new Department off the ground and running. Last November, I chaired a hearing of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force Report. Members of this new 17-member Hart-Rudman Task Force included two former Senators, two former Secretaries of State, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and two Nobel laureates. The task force report is chilling to read. And its conclusion is even more disturbing. It reads: ``A year after September 11, America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In all likelihood, the next attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy.'' Just a month before our hearing, CIA Director George Tenet testified before the Joint Intelligence Committee inquiry that ``al-Qaeda is in an execution phase and intends to strike us both here and overseas.'' He also said that the terrorist threat is as bad today as it was in the summer of 2001. The statements made by the Hart-Rudman Task Force as well as Director Tenet contrast with Mr. Ridge's recent testimony before the Senate Government Affairs Committee. There, Mr. Ridge testified that, ``America is undoubtedly safer and better prepared today than on September 10, 2001'' and that ``much has been accomplished'' to protect Americans from terrorism. My own view is that, while the terrorist threat remains extremely serious, I would disagree with those who argue that we have done nothing since September 11 to reduce our vulnerability to a major terrorist attack. In fact, since September 11, the 107th Congress has passed major anti-terrorism legislation in the areas of law enforcement, intelligence, aviation security, border security, and bioterrorism. However, what we have done so far is not enough. Much more remains to be done, particularly in the areas of intelligence, seaport security, and first responders, including the National Guard. That is why many of us in Congress have been trying to pass additional legislation to protect our country from terrorist attack. Let me give three examples of homeland security legislation that I plan to pursue in this Congress. First, we need to create the position of Director of National Intelligence, whose full-time job would be to oversee the Nation's intelligence community. Under the current structure, the intelligence community is fragmented, there is a lack of coordination between agencies, and there is no effective leadership. The concept behind the bill was endorsed by the House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigating the September 11 attacks. Second, as the Hart-Rudman Task Force recognized, we need comprehensive, immediate action to better secure our ports. Our seaports remain a huge gaping hole in our national security. Terrorism experts who have studied the issue believe that if terrorists try to bring weapons of mass destruction into this country, those weapons will almost certainly come in shipping containers. Only 1 to 2 percent of the 21,000 shipping containers that enter the nation's 361 ports each day are even inspected. I introduced legislation with Senators Kyl, Hutchison, and Snowe in the last Congress that would thoroughly address the issue of port security from the point cargo is loaded in a foreign country to its arrival on land in the U.S. We plan to pursue similar legislation in this Congress. Third, we should train and equip 2,700 National Guard units for emergency response. Modeled after legislation creating the successful National Guard counterdrug program, my proposed bill would permit each governor, with oversight and funding from the Secretary of Defense, to create a homeland security activities plan for his or her State. The National Governors Association, the National Guard , and the co- chairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus all support the bill. The Hart-Rudman Task Force also endorsed the idea. One thing we should do right now is fully fund homeland security. Certainly, the last thing we should be doing is starving the new Department of resources to fight the war on terrorism. One reason I oppose the omnibus appropriations bill is that it cuts homeland security by $1 billion, money that has already been requested, authorized, and appropriated. Right now, the INS will lose $627 million for border security. First responders will lose $132 million. And other homeland security departments and agencies will also suffer. These cuts will make our Nation more vulnerable. They will also make Mr. Ridge's already tough job even harder. I hope that he will be a vigorous advocate for legislation to strengthen our country against terrorists and for adequate resources to pay for such protection. I congratulate Mr. Ridge on his nomination and look forward to working with him once he is confirmed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today, the Senate will vote on a bill that will save children's lives by expanding the existing AMBER Alert program nationwide. I want to commend Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for her continued leadership on this legislation. Her work on this bill has been extraordinary. I also want give a special thanks to Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and to Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member, for putting the National Amber Alert Network Act on the fast track to the Senate Floor. Senator Hutchison and I introduced the bill on January 9th, 2003. Now, just a couple of weeks later, we are voting on Senate passage. I am hopeful that this tidal wave of Senate support will carry over to the House and we soon will have a national AMBER Alert law. So what are AMBER Alerts? AMBER Alerts are official bulletins transmitted over the airwaves to enlist the public's help in tracking down child abductors fleeing a crime scene. AMBER Alerts are such powerful tools because they can be issued within minutes of an abduction and reach a wide public audience. Statistics show that children in the most dangerous abduction cases have precious little time until their safety is compromised. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, 74 percent of children who were abducted, and later found murdered, are killed in the first hours after being taken. Simply put, we need more AMBER Alerts because they may be the best tool law enforcement has to save kidnaped children facing imminent danger. The National AMBER Alert Network Act has three key components. First, the legislation would authorize $20 million to the Department of Transportation and $5 million to the Department of Justice in FY 2004 to provide grants for the development of AMBER Alert systems, electronic message boards, and training and education programs in states that do not have AMBER Alerts. To date, AMBER Alert systems exist in 34 states and a total of 85 local, regional and state jurisdictions. This bill would help the expansion of AMBER Alerts to new jurisdictions. Second, the bill would build upon the President's Executive Order by authorizing a national coordinator for AMBER Alerts in the Department of Justice to expand the network of AMBER Alert systems and to coordinate the issuance of region-wide AMBER Alerts. Third, the bill provides a framework for the Department of Justice to establish minimum standards for the regional coordination of AMBER alerts. The Department of Justice, working with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other private organizations with expertise in this area, would build upon the best standards currently in place. The effectiveness of AMBER Alerts depends on the continued judicious use of the system so that the public does not grow to ignore the warnings. Furthermore, it is the specific intent of this bill not to interfere with the operation of the 85 AMBER plans that are working today. Participation in regional AMBER plans is voluntary, and any plan that wishes to go it alone may still do so. I urge members to support this bill because AMBER Alerts have a proven track record. Nationally, since 1996, the AMBER Alert has been credited with the safe return of 43 children to their families, including one case in which an abductor reportedly released the child after hearing the alert himself. I would like to briefly describe two of these cases: the rescues of 10-year-old Nichole Timmons from Riverside and four-year-old Jessica Cortez from Los Angeles. Last fall, Nichole Timmons and her mother Sharon attended a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information on the AMBER Alert program. In moving testimony, Sharon described how Nichole was abducted from their Riverside home on August 20, 2002 and how an AMBER Alert brought her daughter back to her within hours of the abduction. In Nichole's case, an Alert was issued not just in California, but in Nevada as well. After learning about the Alert, a tribal police officer in Nevada spotted the truck of Nichole's abductor and stopped him within 24 hours of the abduction. He was found with duct tape and a metal pipe. The AMBER Alert was the only reason that Nichole was able to return home to her mother--safe. I can't think of any testimony in support of a bill more powerful than the sight of a mother sitting next to her daughter who she thought might be gone forever. The second case I want to mention is that of Jessica Cortez. Jessica disappeared from Echo Park in Los Angeles on August 11, 2002. But when Jessica's abductor took her to a clinic for medical care, receptionist Denise Leon recognized Jessica from the AMBER Alert and notified law enforcement. Without the publicity generated by the Alert, Jessica could have been lost to her parents forever. Through this legislation, we will extend to every corner of the nation a network of AMBER Alerts that will protect our children. This program will increase the odds that an abducted child will return to his or her family safely. But importantly, it will deter potential abductors from taking a child in the first place. As Marc Klaas said at a hearing on the bill last fall, this legislation will ``save kid's lives.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with a number of my colleagues and the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee, the Senator from South Carolina, to discuss funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, popularly know as SCAAP. As my colleagues know, States and localities across the Nation are facing extraordinary costs associated with incarcerating criminal illegal aliens. Since the September 11th terrorists attacks, State and local governments have borne unprecedented costs that the Nation's critical infrastructure and public are protected. As a result, State and local governments are facing tremendous budget deficits. Moreover, the budgets of local law enforcement agencies are stretched to the limit. California, for one, is estimated to face a shortfall of at least $26 billion over the next 18 months. In the face of these new challenges, the burden placed on States by the Federal Government's long-standing inability to control illegal immigration continues to grow. States like California continue to shoulder extraordinary criminal alien incarceration costs. One out of every seven prison beds in California is occupied by an illegal criminal alien. SCAAP funding helps all States that are experiencing increasing costs from incarcerating undocumented felons--both low-impact and high-impact States. Last year, more than 400 local jurisdictions, including all 50 States, received SCAAP funding. With States facing budget deficits reimbursement for the costs they have incurred will be even more important. Congress must continue to support communities that must shoulder the burden of what is, in essence, a Federal responsibility. Given the rising costs associated with criminal alien incarceration, I had hoped that the Senate would see fit to increase the funding for this important program to $650 million, or at minimum, at last year's level of $565 million. I understand that the House-passed Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill provides $500 million for the SCAAP program. Given that fact, I would like to inquire of my friend from New Hampshire if there is something that can be done to increase funding for this bill for SCAAP to at least the funding level approved by the House.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for his encouraging words. As I am sure he knows, the SCAAP reimbursements provided in prior years did not nearly cover the costs States and localities incurred do incarcerate illegal aliens in their jurisdictions. The cost for States and localities amounted to more than $11 billion. Thus, last year's funding level of $565 million covered a mere 5.1 percent, of the actual costs. Failing to fund the program altogether would be devastating to our States. The State of Wisconsin, for example, would lose more than $3.5 million in funding; Massachusetts would lose over $13 million; Pennsylvania would lose over $2.6 million; Virginia would lose more than $6.4 million; North Carolina would lose $5.2 million; Michigan would lose $2.9 million; Minnesota would lose $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. When the Federal Government fails in its responsibility to control our Nation's borders, local taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens in State and local jails. I will work closely with the Senators from New Hampshire and South Carolina and my colleagues in both bodies ensure that this bill adequately funds SCAAP.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as an appropriator, I come to the floor this afternoon to express my opposition to this omnibus appropriations bill. The $385 billion omnibus appropriations bill cuts almost $10 billion from what the Senate Appropriation Committee approved last year. On top of these Draconian cuts, the bill before us includes a 2.9 percent across the board cut, to nonmilitary programs, and will affect critical programs such as homeland security, education, and job training. This bill is a major mistake and represents a short-sided approach to solving our Nation's problems. What is happening is the administration's effort to starve domestic programs in order to save dollars for a $674 billion tax cut. If this effort is successful, we will see interest rates rise, the deficit balloon, and a 10-year cumulative deficit of $2 to $3 trillion. Americans don't know it yet, but soon will learn that this bill makes a house of cards out of homeland security, which loses $1 billion which were already requested, authorized, and appropriated. How many Americans know that this bill will likely cut 1,175 FBI agents, 490 food safety engineers, and 1,600 customs inspectors who are vital if we are to protect our homeland from contraband and those that would do us harm. How many Americans know that the Head Start cut of $107 million could prevent 2700 youngsters from a Head Start experience, or leave 224,000 needy individuals without the meals provided by WIC, or 230,000 veterans without medical services. To make matters worse, this bill is being offered at a time when our Nation continues to face significant challenges in protecting homeland security, increasing school achievement, and strengthening our workforce. Essentially what this bill does is cut the money from a number of critical projects so this body can pass a tax cut of $674 billion, which will lead to a $2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Every day this body is faced with tough choices. But in my decade in the Senate, I believe that this bill represents one of the worst pieces of legislation to pass this Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Intelligence Community Leadership Act of 2003. This legislation creates the position of Director of National Intelligence to provide budget and statutory authority over coordinating our intelligence efforts. This will help assure that the sort of communication problems that prevented the various elements of our intelligence community from working together effectively before September 11 never happens again. Today there are 14 different agencies and departments which make up the Intelligence Community: the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Army Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, intelligence elements of the Departments of State, Treasury, Energy, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Coast Guard. Together they make up a huge network, with thousands of employees and a significant, secret, budget. Interestingly, there is no real head of this sprawling Community. In law the Director of Central Intelligence leads both the CIA and the Intelligence Community, but in practice he is unable to exercise meaningful control and leadership. The Community is plagued by acute turf battles, incompatible information systems and uncoordinated operations. The present structure makes coordination and movement of personnel within the Intelligence Community more difficult than it should be. Last Spring I offered legislation to address this problem, S. 2645, which created the position of Director of National Intelligence. Since then the Joint Inquiry of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees completed its investigations into the Intelligence Community role in the attacks of September 11. The Joint Inquiries' major recommendation was the creation of a ``Director of National Intelligence'', DNI, with real authority to run the Intelligence Community, separate from the head of the CIA, and thus free from having to run both the Community and one of its major constituent agencies. Working with those recommendations, I have updated the bill I introduced last year to reflect the Joint Inquiries' findings. The changes include adding specific language to ensure that the new Director of National Intelligence has meaningful and effective budget and personnel authority. Specifically this legislation would create the new position of Director of National Intelligence who would head the intelligence community, serving at the pleasure of the President, with the proper and necessary authority to coordinate activities, direct priorities, and develop and execute the budget for our nation's national intelligence community. The DNI would be responsible for all of the functions now performed by the Director of Central Intelligence in his role as head of the intelligence community, while a separate individual would be Director of the CIA. Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the DNI would be empowered to create and execute the national intelligence budget in conjunction with the various intelligence agencies within our government. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, DCIA, freed from the double burden as head of the intelligence community, would then be able to concentrate on the critical missions of the CIA alone: Assure the collection of intelligence from human sources, and that intelligence is properly correlated, evaluated, and disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to decision makers. I recognize that this bill will certainly not solve every problem within the intelligence community, but I believe it is an important, perhaps critical, first step. My hope is that introduction of this bill will move the much-needed debate on Intelligence Community reform forward.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Murray's amendment to add $438 million to Amtrak to fund system-wide rail security upgrades and to reiterate my unwavering support for Amtrak. I believe it is essential to fund Amtrak at $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 to prevent our passenger rail system from grinding to a halt and stranding millions of commuters coast to coast. In fact, Amtrak's President David Gunn has said a funding level of only $762 million would ``guarantee insolvency by spring and the shutting down of the railroad at that time.'' And as James Jones, California State Legislative Director of the United Transportation Union, wrote to me in a recent letter: This shutdown would end all intercity rail and much of the commuter operations in California. This would cause a serious adverse effect on the general public, the Amtrak employees that would be out of work, as well as the California economy. Amtrak's passenger rail service is an essential link in our transportation system and our economy. Every day, Americans use Amtrak and local commuter rail systems that depend on Amtrak to get to and from work. More and more Americans are relying on long distance Amtrak trains for their travel because of security changes at our Nation's airports. I cannot think of a worse time to underfund Amtrak. What will happen if Amtrak shuts down? Well, you can be sure the roads will jam up even more and air travel will become an even greater headache. Last year, I joined many of my colleagues in a commitment to fund $1.2 billion for Amtrak in fiscal year 2003. This is the amount Amtrak needs and it was the amount the Appropriations Committee unanimously approved last year despite the Bush administration's paltry budget request of $521 million for fiscal year 2003. I cannot understand why President Bush continues to stand by his budget request of $521 million. Amtrak needs more funding, not less and last week I was pleased to again co-sponsor Senator Hollings's legislation to fund Amtrak for the next 5 years. The National Defense Rail Act would authorize $4.6 billion annually for passenger rail service. The legislation, which passed the Commerce Committee by a vote of 20-3 last April would fund rail security improvements, high-speed rail development, and operational costs for existing rail routes. I strongly believe that Amtrak is not a failure, it is the government that has failed Amtrak. If we do not properly fund our rail system, how do we expect it to thrive? Since 1971, when Amtrak was founded, only $25 billion has been spent on passenger rail, compared to over $750 billion that has been invested in highways and aviation. The Federal Government has made a commitment to fund road construction and expand aviation capacity, but we have always come up short to provide fair funding for our rail system. The Federal Government provided $15 billion in payments and loan guaranties to aid the airlines after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Why can't we provide $438 million more to keep our trains running? Imagine the chaos that will ensue if Amtrak does shut down. There will be even more traffic on our roads and air travel will slow down if trains are not an option for commuters heading to work or travelers on vacation. Last summer, Senator Boxer and I wrote President Bush to ask him to approve Amtrak's $200 million loan guarantee to prevent the rail system from grinding to a halt. I cannot believe that 6 months later Amtrak is again being denied life support. If Amtrak shuts down, thousands of people in California who depend on Amtrak service every day will be stranded. Since most rail lines in California are run by Amtrak or depend on Amtrak, everything is in jeopardy. These include three Amtrak routes funded by the State and the Federal Government: No. 1, the Capitol Corridor route between San Jose and Auburn; No. 2, the San Joaquin route between Oakland and Bakersfield; and No. 3, the Pacific Surfliner route between San Diego and San Luis Obispo. These are three of the most successful routes in the United States. In fact, all three are among the top five intercity rail corridors, and the Pacific Surfliner is the fastest growing route in the Nation. Overall the State of California has added 28 new daily trains since 1995, and over 1.5 million new passengers. But a shutdown will also threaten some of California's largest regional transportation systems including: No. 1, Caltrain, the rail service between San Francisco and San Jose; No. 2, Metrolink, Southern California's regional transit system; and No. 3, the Coaster, San Diego County's regional train. It is clear to me that a shutdown of Amtrak will be devastating for rail passengers across the Nation. I believe we must act immediately to avoid it. I urge my colleagues to approve Senator Murray's amendment to add $438 million to Amtrak to fund system-wide rail security upgrades.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Intelligence Community Leadership Act of 2003. This legislation creates the position of Director of National Intelligence to provide budget and statutory authority over coordinating our intelligence efforts. This will help assure that the sort of communication problems that prevented the various elements of our intelligence community from working together effectively before September 11 never happens again. Today there are 14 different agencies and departments which make up the Intelligence Community: the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Army Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, intelligence elements of the Departments of State, Treasury, Energy, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Coast Guard. Together they make up a huge network, with thousands of employees and a significant, secret, budget. Interestingly, there is no real head of this sprawling Community. In law the Director of Central Intelligence leads both the CIA and the Intelligence Community, but in practice he is unable to exercise meaningful control and leadership. The Community is plagued by acute turf battles, incompatible information systems and uncoordinated operations. The present structure makes coordination and movement of personnel within the Intelligence Community more difficult than it should be. Last Spring I offered legislation to address this problem, S. 2645, which created the position of Director of National Intelligence. Since then the Joint Inquiry of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees completed its investigations into the Intelligence Community role in the attacks of September 11. The Joint Inquiries' major recommendation was the creation of a ``Director of National Intelligence'', DNI, with real authority to run the Intelligence Community, separate from the head of the CIA, and thus free from having to run both the Community and one of its major constituent agencies. Working with those recommendations, I have updated the bill I introduced last year to reflect the Joint Inquiries' findings. The changes include adding specific language to ensure that the new Director of National Intelligence has meaningful and effective budget and personnel authority. Specifically this legislation would create the new position of Director of National Intelligence who would head the intelligence community, serving at the pleasure of the President, with the proper and necessary authority to coordinate activities, direct priorities, and develop and execute the budget for our nation's national intelligence community. The DNI would be responsible for all of the functions now performed by the Director of Central Intelligence in his role as head of the intelligence community, while a separate individual would be Director of the CIA. Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the DNI would be empowered to create and execute the national intelligence budget in conjunction with the various intelligence agencies within our government. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, DCIA, freed from the double burden as head of the intelligence community, would then be able to concentrate on the critical missions of the CIA alone: Assure the collection of intelligence from human sources, and that intelligence is properly correlated, evaluated, and disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to decision makers. I recognize that this bill will certainly not solve every problem within the intelligence community, but I believe it is an important, perhaps critical, first step. My hope is that introduction of this bill will move the much-needed debate on Intelligence Community reform forward.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Boxer, to introduce the ``San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act'' to authorize the United States Mint to issue a commemorative coin that will honor the San Francisco Old Mint and help restore this historic building in downtown San Francisco. The San Francisco Old Mint Building is an important historical landmark for San Francisco, the State of California, and the United States. Beginning its operations in 1854, the San Francisco Mint was established to take advantage of the plentiful gold and silver mined in the West during the California Gold Rush. At one point, more than half of the money minted in the United States came from the San Francisco Mint, and it once held a third of the Nation's gold supply. Today the ``S'' Mint Mark is found on many rare coins as well as on many new proof coin sets. The Old Mint Building, located in the heart of the city, has been standing for more than 125 years as the oldest stone building in San Francisco. It is the Old Mint opened in 1874, it was the largest Federal building in the West. Architect Alfred B. Mullet designed this building which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A.B. Mullet is the same architect who designed both the U.S. Treasury building and the Old Executive Office Building here in Washington D.C. A product of America's ``Gilded Age,'' the Old Mint is architecturally reflective of a distinguished line of Greek revival- style buildings that were soon to be eclipsed by other designs at the turn of the century. Aided by its magnificent stone structure, the Old Mint Building was able to survive the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906. In fact, the Mint was the only financial instruction that remained operable after the earthquake and the building was used as the treasury for the city's disaster relief funds. The San Francisco Old Mint Building minted coins until 1937 when the building became too small and its operations moved to a larger space elsewhere in San Francisco. In the years since then, the building has deteriorated. In 1994, the Bureau of the Mint closed the Old Mint because it could not afford the then-estimated $20 million seismic retrofit to bring the building up to code. Since then the building, transferred to the General Services Administration, has remained closed. Now, the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society has proposed an exciting project to restore and rejuvenate the Old Mint Building in downtown San Francisco. A fine history museum supported by shops, restaurants, community office space, a coin shop, and a visitors center will combine to make the building a striking and viable destination. I am introducing this legislation to honor the history of the San Francisco Old Mint and the role it played in rebuilding the great ``City by the Bay'' after the 1906 Earthquake and Fire. This legislation will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue 100,000 $5 gold coins and 500,000 $1 silver coins, which will be emblematic of the San Francisco Old Mint Building and its importance to California and the United States. The commemorative coin will also help provide funds for the building's restoration. The proceeds generated from the sale of these commemorative coins will be paid to the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society for the building's rehabilitation. The San Francisco Old Mint is venerated by coin collectors as the ``Granite Lady'' and I believe it is worthy of a commemorative coin. I am very pleased to note that the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, CCCAC, has agreed and that its members have unanimously endorsed this legislation for a 2006 coin, a year that will mark the 100-year anniversary of the building's survival of the 1906 earthquake and fire. 2006 is also the year the U.S. Mint will issue the California quarter and I expect both coins will be attractive to coin collectors. The CCCAC's recommendation will be included in its 2002 annual report that will be delivered to Congress before the end of this month. Collectors, Californians, and millions of Americans hold the San Francisco Old Mint in the highest regard as a national treasure. Because no other such icon of the numismatic community has been honored by the issuance of a commemorative coin, I believe the San Francisco Old Mint merits commemoration at this time. I believe honoring and restoring the San Francisco Old Mint Building is an important historic preservation project. I hope my colleagues will join me to support the San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act to honor the unique and proud history of the ``Granite Lady.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hutchison in introducing the Air Cargo Security Act, a bill that passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent in the 107th Congress. Today Senator Hutchison and I released a report from the General Accounting Office that demonstrates why the Congress and the Transportation Security Administration must, together, move quickly to shore up our vulnerabilities to protect against another terrorist attack. I strongly believe that we must increase our defenses across the board to anticipate the next attack, not just correct the vulnerabilities that were already exploited by terrorists on September 11th. After September 11th, Congress moved quickly to federalize the airport security screening workforce to prevent more hijackings, but we have not done enough to increase our air cargo security. The General Accounting Office report shows that Congress must require the TSA to develop a strategic plan to screen and inspect air cargo to protect our Nation's air transportation system. According to this report, our air cargo system remains vulnerable to a terrorist attack because: first, there aren't enough safeguards in place to ensure that someone shipping air cargo under the ``known shipper'' program has taken the proper steps to protect against use by terrorists; second, cargo tampering is possible at various points where cargo transfers from company to company; third, air cargo handlers are not required to have criminal background checks, and they do not always have their identification verified; fourth and most importantly, most cargo shipped by air is never screened. To address these problems, the GAO recommends that the Transportation Security Administration develop a comprehensive plan for improving air cargo security. The legislation we are reintroducing today, directs the TSA to: 1. Develop a strategic plan to ensure the security of all air cargo; 2. Establish an industry-wide pilot program database of known shippers; 3. set up a training program for handlers to learn how to safe-guard cargo from tampering; and 4. Inspect air cargo shipping facilities on a regular basis. The Aviation Security Act Congress passed after September 11 required the Transportation Security Administration to screen and inspect air cargo ``as soon as practicable.'' This report shows we cannot wait any longer. The time is now for the Senate to again take up this legislation, again pass this legislation, and for the TSA to prevent terrorists from tampering with the cargo loaded into the underbelly of our airplanes. The General Accounting Office recommends that the Under Secretary for Transportation develop a comprehensive plan for air cargo security that includes priority actions identified on the basis of risk, costs, deadlines for completing those actions, and performance targets. The TSA has a great deal of options at its disposal. The TSA could: screen air cargo for explosives; secure cargo with high-tech seals; control access to holding areas containing cargo; use cargo tracking systems; install more cameras in cargo areas at airports; use blast resistant containers; have more bomb-sniffing dogs; put cargo in decompression chambers before loading it onto an aircraft; require the identity of people making air cargo deliveries to be checked; establish an industrywide computer profiling system; require criminal background checks for employees at freight forwarders and consolidators; and require third party inspections. We do not expect the TSA to X-ray and scan all cargo for explosives because shippers and carriers would be able to process only 4 percent of cargo received daily, which would severely disrupt the air cargo industry. However, the Federal Government can deploy a combination of the techniques I have listed to implement a comprehensive security plan for air cargo. Since one half of the hull of each passenger aircraft is typically filled with cargo and 22 percent of all cargo transported by plane is loaded on passenger flights, I believe air cargo security is just as important as passenger security. In fact, you cannot keep passengers safe without stronger air cargo security. Each time there is a major jet crash or bombing, we reexamine our aviation security. I hope it will not take another accident or attack for us to finally pass this legislation into law. I would like to thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on the issue of transportation security and I urge my colleagues to support our legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hutchison in introducing the Air Cargo Security Act, a bill that passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent in the 107th Congress. Today Senator Hutchison and I released a report from the General Accounting Office that demonstrates why the Congress and the Transportation Security Administration must, together, move quickly to shore up our vulnerabilities to protect against another terrorist attack. I strongly believe that we must increase our defenses across the board to anticipate the next attack, not just correct the vulnerabilities that were already exploited by terrorists on September 11th. After September 11th, Congress moved quickly to federalize the airport security screening workforce to prevent more hijackings, but we have not done enough to increase our air cargo security. The General Accounting Office report shows that Congress must require the TSA to develop a strategic plan to screen and inspect air cargo to protect our Nation's air transportation system. According to this report, our air cargo system remains vulnerable to a terrorist attack because: first, there aren't enough safeguards in place to ensure that someone shipping air cargo under the ``known shipper'' program has taken the proper steps to protect against use by terrorists; second, cargo tampering is possible at various points where cargo transfers from company to company; third, air cargo handlers are not required to have criminal background checks, and they do not always have their identification verified; fourth and most importantly, most cargo shipped by air is never screened. To address these problems, the GAO recommends that the Transportation Security Administration develop a comprehensive plan for improving air cargo security. The legislation we are reintroducing today, directs the TSA to: 1. Develop a strategic plan to ensure the security of all air cargo; 2. Establish an industry-wide pilot program database of known shippers; 3. set up a training program for handlers to learn how to safe-guard cargo from tampering; and 4. Inspect air cargo shipping facilities on a regular basis. The Aviation Security Act Congress passed after September 11 required the Transportation Security Administration to screen and inspect air cargo ``as soon as practicable.'' This report shows we cannot wait any longer. The time is now for the Senate to again take up this legislation, again pass this legislation, and for the TSA to prevent terrorists from tampering with the cargo loaded into the underbelly of our airplanes. The General Accounting Office recommends that the Under Secretary for Transportation develop a comprehensive plan for air cargo security that includes priority actions identified on the basis of risk, costs, deadlines for completing those actions, and performance targets. The TSA has a great deal of options at its disposal. The TSA could: screen air cargo for explosives; secure cargo with high-tech seals; control access to holding areas containing cargo; use cargo tracking systems; install more cameras in cargo areas at airports; use blast resistant containers; have more bomb-sniffing dogs; put cargo in decompression chambers before loading it onto an aircraft; require the identity of people making air cargo deliveries to be checked; establish an industrywide computer profiling system; require criminal background checks for employees at freight forwarders and consolidators; and require third party inspections. We do not expect the TSA to X-ray and scan all cargo for explosives because shippers and carriers would be able to process only 4 percent of cargo received daily, which would severely disrupt the air cargo industry. However, the Federal Government can deploy a combination of the techniques I have listed to implement a comprehensive security plan for air cargo. Since one half of the hull of each passenger aircraft is typically filled with cargo and 22 percent of all cargo transported by plane is loaded on passenger flights, I believe air cargo security is just as important as passenger security. In fact, you cannot keep passengers safe without stronger air cargo security. Each time there is a major jet crash or bombing, we reexamine our aviation security. I hope it will not take another accident or attack for us to finally pass this legislation into law. I would like to thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on the issue of transportation security and I urge my colleagues to support our legislation.