Dianne Feinstein

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act along with Senator Kyl, Senator Grassley, Senator Sessions, and Senator Craig. I first introduced this bipartisan legislation last June with the full support of the Justice Department. The bill will make it easier for prosecutors to target those identity thieves who, as is so often the case, steal an identity for the purpose of committing one or more other crimes. I am hopeful that we can build on the momentum generated by this legislation in the 107th Congress. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information conducted a hearing on the bill on July 9, 2002. The Judiciary Committee subsequently passed the legislation out of Committee on November 14, shortly before the Senate went out of session. As we enter the 108th congress, there remains a compelling need to stiffen the penalties for identity thieves. A little more than a month ago, the largest single identity theft case in U.S. history was uncovered. Federal authorities arrested Philip Cummings who, along with two accomplices, allegedly sold the credit reports and other personal information of 30,000 victims for as little as $30 each. Investigators have confirmed $2.7 million in losses so far, and the totals are expected to be much greater. This case is an example of the tremendous damage that an identity thief can cause. Moreover, many serious crimes, even including terrorism, are aided by stolen identifies. Lofti Raissi, a 27-year old Algerian pilot from London who is believed to have trained four of the 9/11 hijackers, was identified in British court papers as having used the Social Security number of Dorothy Hansen, a retired factory worker from Jersey City, NJ, who died in 1991. Last year, the Department of Justice filed charges against an Algerian national who stole the identifies of 21 members of a health club in Cambridge, MA. He then transferred those stolen identities to one of the individuals convicted in the failed plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. Joseph Kalady of Chicago was charged with trying to fake his own death using the identity of another. Kalady, who was awaiting trial on charges of counterfeiting birth certificates, Social Security cards and driver's licenses, allegedly suffocated a homeless man and sought to have him cremated under Mr. Kalady's identity in order to fake his own death and avoid prosecution. The stories go on and on, and it is those stories that make the legislation we introduce today so vital. Identity theft has become the major escalating crime of the new millennium, and Congress needs to give law enforcement the tools to prosecute these crimes. Let me just outline what this bill would do. First, the bill would create a separate crime of ``aggravated identity theft'' for any person who uses the identity of another person to commit certain serious, Federal crimes. Specifically, the legislation would provide for an additional two- year penalty for any individual convicted of committing one of the following serious Federal crimes while using the identity of another person: Stealing another's identity in order to illegally obtain citizenship in the United States; stealing another's identity to obtain a passport or visa; using another's identity to remain in the United States illegally after a visa has expired or an individual has been ordered to depart this country; stealing an individual's identity to commit bank, wire or mail fraud, or to steal from employee pension funds; and other serious Federal crimes, all of them felonies. Furthermore, the legislation would provide for an additional five- year penalty for any individual who uses the stolen identity of another person to commit any one of the enumerated Federal terrorism crimes found in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B). These crimes include: The destruction of aircraft; the assassination or kidnapping of high level Federal officials; bombings; hostage taking; providing material support to terrorism organizations; and other terrorist crimes. Under the legislation, aggravated identity theft is a separate crime, not just a sentencing enhancement. And the two-year and five-year penalties for aggravated identity theft must be served consecutively to the sentence for the underlying crime. This bill also strengthens the ability of law enforcement to go after identity thieves and to provide their case. First, the bill adds the word ``possesses'' to current law, in order to allow law enforcement to target individuals who possess the identity documents of another person with the intent to commit a crime. Current Federal law prohibits the transfer or use of false identity documents, but does not specifically ban the possession of those documents with the intent to commit a crime. So if law enforcement discovers a stash of identity documents with the clear intent to use those documents to commit other crimes, the person who possesses those documents will now be subject to prosecution. Second, the legislation amends current law to make it clear that if a person uses a false identity ``in connection with'' another Federal crime, and the intent of the underlying Federal crime is proven, then the intent to use the false identity to commitment that crime need not be separately proved. This simply makes the job of the prosecutor easier when an individual is convicted of a Federal crime and uses a false identity in collection with that crime. This legislation also increases the maximum penalty for identity theft under current law from three years to five years. And finally, the legislation we introduce today will clarify that the current 25-year maximum sentence for identity theft in facilitation of international terrorism also applies to identity theft in facilitation of domestic terrorism as well. Identity theft is a crime on the rise in America, and it is a crime with severe consequences not only for the individual victims of the identity theft, but for every consumer and every financial institution as well. Identity theft comes in many forms and can be perpetrated in many ways, and that is why I have worked for many years now with Senator Kyl and others to put some safeguards into the law that might better prevent the fraud from occurring in the first place, and to crack down on identity thieves. And other legislation I have introduced would put into place certain procedural safeguards to protect credit card numbers, personal information, and other key data from potential identity thieves. The legislation we introduce today is meant to beef up the law in terms of what happens after an identity theft takes place. In seriously enhancing the penalties for identity thieves who commit other Federal crimes, we mean to send a strong signal to all those who would commit this increasingly popular crime that the relatively free ride they have experienced in recent years is over. No longer will prosecutors decline to take identity theft seriously. No longer will identity thieves get off with just a slap on the wrist, if they are prosecuted at all. Under this legislation, penalties will be severe, prosecution will be more likely, and cases against identity thieves will be easier to prove. Every day in this country serious criminals and criminal organizations are stealing and falsifying identities with the purpose of doing serious harm to common citizens, government officials, or even our Nation itself. It is time we did something about it, and this bill is an important step in that process. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, 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 the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act along with Senator Kyl, Senator Grassley, Senator Sessions, and Senator Craig. I first introduced this bipartisan legislation last June with the full support of the Justice Department. The bill will make it easier for prosecutors to target those identity thieves who, as is so often the case, steal an identity for the purpose of committing one or more other crimes. I am hopeful that we can build on the momentum generated by this legislation in the 107th Congress. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information conducted a hearing on the bill on July 9, 2002. The Judiciary Committee subsequently passed the legislation out of Committee on November 14, shortly before the Senate went out of session. As we enter the 108th congress, there remains a compelling need to stiffen the penalties for identity thieves. A little more than a month ago, the largest single identity theft case in U.S. history was uncovered. Federal authorities arrested Philip Cummings who, along with two accomplices, allegedly sold the credit reports and other personal information of 30,000 victims for as little as $30 each. Investigators have confirmed $2.7 million in losses so far, and the totals are expected to be much greater. This case is an example of the tremendous damage that an identity thief can cause. Moreover, many serious crimes, even including terrorism, are aided by stolen identifies. Lofti Raissi, a 27-year old Algerian pilot from London who is believed to have trained four of the 9/11 hijackers, was identified in British court papers as having used the Social Security number of Dorothy Hansen, a retired factory worker from Jersey City, NJ, who died in 1991. Last year, the Department of Justice filed charges against an Algerian national who stole the identifies of 21 members of a health club in Cambridge, MA. He then transferred those stolen identities to one of the individuals convicted in the failed plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. Joseph Kalady of Chicago was charged with trying to fake his own death using the identity of another. Kalady, who was awaiting trial on charges of counterfeiting birth certificates, Social Security cards and driver's licenses, allegedly suffocated a homeless man and sought to have him cremated under Mr. Kalady's identity in order to fake his own death and avoid prosecution. The stories go on and on, and it is those stories that make the legislation we introduce today so vital. Identity theft has become the major escalating crime of the new millennium, and Congress needs to give law enforcement the tools to prosecute these crimes. Let me just outline what this bill would do. First, the bill would create a separate crime of ``aggravated identity theft'' for any person who uses the identity of another person to commit certain serious, Federal crimes. Specifically, the legislation would provide for an additional two- year penalty for any individual convicted of committing one of the following serious Federal crimes while using the identity of another person: Stealing another's identity in order to illegally obtain citizenship in the United States; stealing another's identity to obtain a passport or visa; using another's identity to remain in the United States illegally after a visa has expired or an individual has been ordered to depart this country; stealing an individual's identity to commit bank, wire or mail fraud, or to steal from employee pension funds; and other serious Federal crimes, all of them felonies. Furthermore, the legislation would provide for an additional five- year penalty for any individual who uses the stolen identity of another person to commit any one of the enumerated Federal terrorism crimes found in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B). These crimes include: The destruction of aircraft; the assassination or kidnapping of high level Federal officials; bombings; hostage taking; providing material support to terrorism organizations; and other terrorist crimes. Under the legislation, aggravated identity theft is a separate crime, not just a sentencing enhancement. And the two-year and five-year penalties for aggravated identity theft must be served consecutively to the sentence for the underlying crime. This bill also strengthens the ability of law enforcement to go after identity thieves and to provide their case. First, the bill adds the word ``possesses'' to current law, in order to allow law enforcement to target individuals who possess the identity documents of another person with the intent to commit a crime. Current Federal law prohibits the transfer or use of false identity documents, but does not specifically ban the possession of those documents with the intent to commit a crime. So if law enforcement discovers a stash of identity documents with the clear intent to use those documents to commit other crimes, the person who possesses those documents will now be subject to prosecution. Second, the legislation amends current law to make it clear that if a person uses a false identity ``in connection with'' another Federal crime, and the intent of the underlying Federal crime is proven, then the intent to use the false identity to commitment that crime need not be separately proved. This simply makes the job of the prosecutor easier when an individual is convicted of a Federal crime and uses a false identity in collection with that crime. This legislation also increases the maximum penalty for identity theft under current law from three years to five years. And finally, the legislation we introduce today will clarify that the current 25-year maximum sentence for identity theft in facilitation of international terrorism also applies to identity theft in facilitation of domestic terrorism as well. Identity theft is a crime on the rise in America, and it is a crime with severe consequences not only for the individual victims of the identity theft, but for every consumer and every financial institution as well. Identity theft comes in many forms and can be perpetrated in many ways, and that is why I have worked for many years now with Senator Kyl and others to put some safeguards into the law that might better prevent the fraud from occurring in the first place, and to crack down on identity thieves. And other legislation I have introduced would put into place certain procedural safeguards to protect credit card numbers, personal information, and other key data from potential identity thieves. The legislation we introduce today is meant to beef up the law in terms of what happens after an identity theft takes place. In seriously enhancing the penalties for identity thieves who commit other Federal crimes, we mean to send a strong signal to all those who would commit this increasingly popular crime that the relatively free ride they have experienced in recent years is over. No longer will prosecutors decline to take identity theft seriously. No longer will identity thieves get off with just a slap on the wrist, if they are prosecuted at all. Under this legislation, penalties will be severe, prosecution will be more likely, and cases against identity thieves will be easier to prove. Every day in this country serious criminals and criminal organizations are stealing and falsifying identities with the purpose of doing serious harm to common citizens, government officials, or even our Nation itself. It is time we did something about it, and this bill is an important step in that process. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, 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 with Senator Voinovich to introduce legislation to expand the Federal loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers and administrators. Nationwide, only 22 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree program. In California, that number is even smaller: about 16 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a bachelor's degree. A survey completed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in June 2000 called the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, FACES, found a strong relationship between the education of the Head Start teacher and classroom quality. ``Teachers with higher education levels were found to be more sensitive and responsive to their children, to have more high quality language activities, and more creative activities in their classrooms.'' Teachers with higher levels of education also had classes with more high quality language activities such as reading books to the children and provided more opportunities for children to develop skills in expressing thoughts. Equally important, teachers with higher levels of education were found to be more responsive and sensitive to the children in their classes. Head Start is one of the most important Federal programs because it has the potential to reach children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing. We know that poor children disproportionately start school behind their peers, they are less likely to count to 10 or to recite the alphabet. Providing low-income children with access to programs that encourage cognitive learning and prepare them to enter school ready to learn is important. Head Start is one example of a Federal program that has the potential to reach every low-income child; to help every eligible child learn to count to ten and begin to recite the alphabet. Many of our Nation's youngsters, however, enter elementary school without the basic skills necessary to succeed. Often these children lag behind their peers throughout their academic career. As taxpayers, we will spend millions on efforts to help these children catch up. Many of these children will never catch up. Several studies confirm the importance of providing low-income children with the opportunity early on to gain basic cognitive skills: a study conducted on a preschool program in Chicago showed that for every dollar invested, $8 was saved by society in projected costs. Additionally, 26 percent more children were likely to finish high school and 40 percent were less likely to repeat a grade. The National Head Start Association found that for every dollar invested in Head Start, at least $2.50 is saved because these children need less remedial education and are less likely to be on welfare programs or involved with the juvenile justice system that non- Head Start peers. The Rand Corporation found that for every dollar invested in early childhood learning programs, taxpayers save between $4 and $7 later by reducing the need for alcohol and drug treatment programs, special education programs, mental health services, and the likelihood of incarceration. We can save millions by providing low-income children with access to quality preschool where they will gain the necessary skills to succeed in school and life. In order to give every child a head start in life, we must continue to recruit qualified teachers to the Head Start field who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognition learning. Obtaining and maintaining teachers with such qualifications is the only way to jump-start cognition learning and to ensure that our youngsters start elementary school ready to learn. In 2000, the Head Start 2010 National Advisory Panel presided over fifteen national hearings and open forums. The panel found: ``There was a tremendous amount of testimony about the fact that, despite increases resulting from Federal quality set-aside funding, relatively low salaries and poor or non-existent benefits make it difficult to attract and retain qualified staff over the long term. Witnesses stated that many staff positions remain vacant and turnover is likely to worsen if compensation does not improve significantly . . . comments included passionate exhortations for greater investment in staff, observing that, in Head Start . . . the quality of the program is tied directly to the quality of the staff.'' Many Head Start programs in California are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better, nationally, the average Head Start teacher made $20,700 in 2000 compared to $40,575 for an elementary and secondary school teacher. Head Start teachers are making half of that elementary and secondary teachers are paid on average. Low pay, combined with mounting student loan debt, is a real deterrent to getting college graduates to become Head Start teachers. And every teacher Head Start loses impacts access to services for our Nation's youngsters. Today, there are no educational requirements for a Head Start teacher other than a child development associate CDA, credential, requiring 24 early child education credits and 16 general education credits. By 2003, 50 percent of Head Start teachers will be required to have at minimum an associate or 2-year degree. Following the recommendation of the Head Start 2010 National Advisory Panel, I believe we must elevate the compensation to attract and retain qualified individuals to commit to long-term careers in Head Start. The loan forgiveness incentives in this bill are meant to encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in the Head Start field. In exchange for 5 years of service, a Head Start teacher administrator could receive up to $5,000 of the Federal Stafford Loan forgiven. I believe we must continue to improve the Head Start program such that children leave the program able to count to ten, to recognize sizes and colors, and can begin to recite the alphabet, to name a few indicators of cognitive learning. This is just the first step. To further ensure cognitive learning, we must also continue to raise the standards and pay for Head Start teachers. Ensuring that our nation's youngster have access to highly educated and qualified teachers should be a priority of this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation at the start of this new Congress to protect those living along the California-Mexican border from harmful power plant emissions. This bill, which Congressman Duncan Hunter is also re-introducing today in the House of Representatives, will prevent power plants built in Mexico from using natural gas from the United States, unless firms operating these plants agree to comply with California's air pollution standards. Currently there are two new power plants planned for Mexicali, Mexico, a city right across the border from Imperial County, California. The Imperial Valley produces much of our Nation's wintertime vegetables. The Valley is the region in Southern California that will be impacted most by pollution from these power plants in Mexico. And since Imperial County has some of the worst air quality in the United States and one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the State, I believe these new plants must meet California emission standards. One of the Mexicali plants, which is being built by Sempra Energy, will have pollution mitigation technology to minimize the impact of air pollution on the residents of the Imperial Valley. However, the other plant, to be built by InterGen, will not. InterGen officials have repeatedly stated that their Mexicali plant will meet ``domestic standards or World Bank standards.'' The problem is these are not U.S. standards and are far below California standards. I am introducing this legislation today to make sure any plant that comes online along the California-Mexican border meets the same air quality standards as plants in California. The residents of Imperial County and the entire Southern California region deserve nothing less. I have heard from many constituents in Southern California concerned about the InterGen plant and local officials in Imperial County are adamantly opposed to the InterGen plant because the company has refused to install pollution control devices on all four operating units. This legislation has the support of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, the Imperial District, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy. This legislation will ensure energy plants along the border employ the best technology available to control pollution and protect the public health for residents of Southern California and other border regions in a similar situation. The bill will prohibit energy companies from exporting natural gas from the United States for use in Mexico unless the natural gas fired generators south of the border meet the air standards prevalent in the United States. This will effectively cut power plants off from the natural gas supply if they do not meet higher emissions standards. This legislation will not constrain power plants that were put online prior to January 1, 2003. It will apply to plants built after the new year and projects that come online in the future. This bill will only apply to power plants within 50 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. And the legislation will only apply to power plants that generate more than 50 megawatts of power. We do not want to block any moves to replace dirty diesel back-up generators with cleaner natural-gas fired small power sources. The bill calls for collaboration between the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to determine if a power plant is in compliance with relevant emission standards. I support the development of new energy projects for California because I believe we need to bring more power online. However, I do not believe the fact that we need more power in California should allow companies to take advantage of this need and use it as an excuse to devote less attention to clear air and public health. It is not unreasonable to ensure that companies making money in California energy market meet strict environmental standards. This legislation is meant to strike a balance between promoting new sources of energy south of the border and protecting the environment throughout the border region. It is not a final resolution of these cross-border issues, but I believe it is a good first step.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, with Senator Chafee, to freeze the top income tax rate at its current level of 38.6 percent, until such time as the Federal budget returns to surpluses. We believe the ballooning deficit is bad for the economy, bad for interest rates, and bad for the health of the Nation. Under current law, the top income tax rate is scheduled to drop from 38.6 percent to 37.6 percent in 2004 and then to 35 percent in 2006. This rate is applied to the adjusted gross income of those who earn over $312,000. This top rate freeze would save $88 billion between now and 2010, and $132 billion through 2012, every penny of which would go toward reducing the Federal deficit. Everyone should understand that this top tax rate is paid by just 908,000 of the more than 128 million taxpayers nationwide, just 0.7 percent of American taxpayers. This is not a time for tax policies which benefit only a small portion of the population. It is a time for fiscally responsible policies that will ensure long-term growth and provide an immediate stimulus to our economy. In June 2001, I voted for the President's tax plan. It was truly a different time: 9/11 had not taken place; war had not appeared on the horizon; revelations of corporate fraud had not surfaced; and a recession was not evident. Those times are as different from today as day is from night. At the time, Senator Chafee and I, along with twelve other Senators from both parties, supported a ``trigger'' on the 2001 tax reduction. This would have frozen future tax reductions under the Bush Tax Cut if the budget returned to deficit. Unfortunately, we were able to attract only 49 votes on the amendment. I wish we had that trigger today. Now, it is estimated that we face $1.4 trillion in cumulative budget deficits between now and 2012. And that is why we return to the idea of the trigger. I believe that we should not allow the rate reduction for the top rate to proceed, until we return to budget surpluses. And that brings us to the Bush Administration's $674 billion tax cut and economic stimulus package. In my view, this is the wrong plan at the wrong time. It digs the Nation deeper into debt. It is not a stimulus. It is skewed to the wealthy. And it severely limits the government's ability to pay for needed programs, like education, transportation, and law enforcement. First, the President's plan would be a major contributor to massive budget deficits. The proposal would result in a budget deficit of approximately $482 billion this year alone, if the social security trust fund surpluses were not used to fund the budget. Using the social security trust fund, the deficit would still be $312 billion. This does not include the costs of a possible war with Iraq, an extension of Federal unemployment benefits, and the FY 2003 and FY 2004 appropriations bills. Furthermore, as the Federal debt increases, the government will spend billions more in tax dollars on servicing the debt, instead of priorities like homeland security, healthcare, education, transportation, or the environment. Interest on the debt over ten years is already projected to be $1.3 trillion higher than expected, even before this new package, and this package would add more than $100 billion in new interest payments over the next ten years. Unlike home mortgage payments, interest on the debt is rolled over and compounds, which makes a rising debt extremely dangerous over the long-term. Second, the President's tax cut is skewed to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Taxpayers with income over 1 million would receive an average of more than $88,000 in benefits, while the typical middle- income taxpayer would only benefit by $265. This is clearly unfair. In fact one-third of all benefits would go to the wealthiest 1 percent, while less than 10 percent of the benefits would go to the 60 percent of taxpayers making under $54,000. Third, the proposal is not stimulative. The central feature of the Administration's plan, an elimination of taxes on corporate dividends, would not begin to be felt until April 2004. And when those savings do kick in, they would largely benefit the wealthiest people--with more than half the benefits, $225 billion, going to the top five percent of taxpayers. So to say this is a stimulus is simply inaccurate and misleading. So, today we are urging the Senate to consider freezing a single element of the 2001 tax package. I urge my colleagues to approve a fiscally responsible package of tax proposals that reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy, instead of a massive tax cut which will do neither. Mr. President, I request that the attached table be included for the Record with my statement of support for the Feinstein-Chafee Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2003.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Hutchison in re-introducing the National AMBER Alert Network Act. This legislation builds on the proven successes of the AMBER Alert program. 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 kidnapped children facing imminent danger. Last Fall, Senator Hutchison and I first introduced the ``National AMBER Alert Network Act.'' The bill attracted tremendous support in the Senate. Just seven days after it was introduced, the bill passed the Senate. While the legislation did not pass the House, President Bush issued an executive order putting some of the pieces of the National AMBER Alert Network Act into effect. Specifically, on October 3, 2002, President Bush announced that the Administration would create a national AMBER Alert coordinator in the Department of Justice, would draft national standards for AMBER Alerts; and allocate $10 million in funding for the creation of new AMBER Alert programs. While President Bush's actions were an important first step, we now need to ensure the long-term viability of the national AMBER Alert program by enacting authorizing legislation. The bill we introduce today 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 33 States and a total of 83 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. Today, an AMBER Alert is typically issued only when: a law enforcement agency confirms that a predatory child abduction has occurred, the child is in imminent danger, and there is information available that, if disseminated to the public, could assist in the safe recovery of the child. 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 83 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 42 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 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 safety. But importantly, it will deter potential abductors from taking a child in the first place. As Mark Klaas said at a hearing on the bill last Fall, this legislation will ``save kids lives.'' Once again, let me thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for her tremendous leadership on this issue. It is my hope that this bill will continue to see the strong, bipartisan support that led to its swift passage in the Senate last year. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Hutchison in re-introducing the National AMBER Alert Network Act. This legislation builds on the proven successes of the AMBER Alert program. 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 kidnapped children facing imminent danger. Last Fall, Senator Hutchison and I first introduced the ``National AMBER Alert Network Act.'' The bill attracted tremendous support in the Senate. Just seven days after it was introduced, the bill passed the Senate. While the legislation did not pass the House, President Bush issued an executive order putting some of the pieces of the National AMBER Alert Network Act into effect. Specifically, on October 3, 2002, President Bush announced that the Administration would create a national AMBER Alert coordinator in the Department of Justice, would draft national standards for AMBER Alerts; and allocate $10 million in funding for the creation of new AMBER Alert programs. While President Bush's actions were an important first step, we now need to ensure the long-term viability of the national AMBER Alert program by enacting authorizing legislation. The bill we introduce today 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 33 States and a total of 83 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. Today, an AMBER Alert is typically issued only when: a law enforcement agency confirms that a predatory child abduction has occurred, the child is in imminent danger, and there is information available that, if disseminated to the public, could assist in the safe recovery of the child. 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 83 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 42 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 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 safety. But importantly, it will deter potential abductors from taking a child in the first place. As Mark Klaas said at a hearing on the bill last Fall, this legislation will ``save kids lives.'' Once again, let me thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for her tremendous leadership on this issue. It is my hope that this bill will continue to see the strong, bipartisan support that led to its swift passage in the Senate last year. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, with Senator Chafee, to freeze the top income tax rate at its current level of 38.6 percent, until such time as the Federal budget returns to surpluses. We believe the ballooning deficit is bad for the economy, bad for interest rates, and bad for the health of the Nation. Under current law, the top income tax rate is scheduled to drop from 38.6 percent to 37.6 percent in 2004 and then to 35 percent in 2006. This rate is applied to the adjusted gross income of those who earn over $312,000. This top rate freeze would save $88 billion between now and 2010, and $132 billion through 2012, every penny of which would go toward reducing the Federal deficit. Everyone should understand that this top tax rate is paid by just 908,000 of the more than 128 million taxpayers nationwide, just 0.7 percent of American taxpayers. This is not a time for tax policies which benefit only a small portion of the population. It is a time for fiscally responsible policies that will ensure long-term growth and provide an immediate stimulus to our economy. In June 2001, I voted for the President's tax plan. It was truly a different time: 9/11 had not taken place; war had not appeared on the horizon; revelations of corporate fraud had not surfaced; and a recession was not evident. Those times are as different from today as day is from night. At the time, Senator Chafee and I, along with twelve other Senators from both parties, supported a ``trigger'' on the 2001 tax reduction. This would have frozen future tax reductions under the Bush Tax Cut if the budget returned to deficit. Unfortunately, we were able to attract only 49 votes on the amendment. I wish we had that trigger today. Now, it is estimated that we face $1.4 trillion in cumulative budget deficits between now and 2012. And that is why we return to the idea of the trigger. I believe that we should not allow the rate reduction for the top rate to proceed, until we return to budget surpluses. And that brings us to the Bush Administration's $674 billion tax cut and economic stimulus package. In my view, this is the wrong plan at the wrong time. It digs the Nation deeper into debt. It is not a stimulus. It is skewed to the wealthy. And it severely limits the government's ability to pay for needed programs, like education, transportation, and law enforcement. First, the President's plan would be a major contributor to massive budget deficits. The proposal would result in a budget deficit of approximately $482 billion this year alone, if the social security trust fund surpluses were not used to fund the budget. Using the social security trust fund, the deficit would still be $312 billion. This does not include the costs of a possible war with Iraq, an extension of Federal unemployment benefits, and the FY 2003 and FY 2004 appropriations bills. Furthermore, as the Federal debt increases, the government will spend billions more in tax dollars on servicing the debt, instead of priorities like homeland security, healthcare, education, transportation, or the environment. Interest on the debt over ten years is already projected to be $1.3 trillion higher than expected, even before this new package, and this package would add more than $100 billion in new interest payments over the next ten years. Unlike home mortgage payments, interest on the debt is rolled over and compounds, which makes a rising debt extremely dangerous over the long-term. Second, the President's tax cut is skewed to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Taxpayers with income over 1 million would receive an average of more than $88,000 in benefits, while the typical middle- income taxpayer would only benefit by $265. This is clearly unfair. In fact one-third of all benefits would go to the wealthiest 1 percent, while less than 10 percent of the benefits would go to the 60 percent of taxpayers making under $54,000. Third, the proposal is not stimulative. The central feature of the Administration's plan, an elimination of taxes on corporate dividends, would not begin to be felt until April 2004. And when those savings do kick in, they would largely benefit the wealthiest people--with more than half the benefits, $225 billion, going to the top five percent of taxpayers. So to say this is a stimulus is simply inaccurate and misleading. So, today we are urging the Senate to consider freezing a single element of the 2001 tax package. I urge my colleagues to approve a fiscally responsible package of tax proposals that reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy, instead of a massive tax cut which will do neither. Mr. President, I request that the attached table be included for the Record with my statement of support for the Feinstein-Chafee Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2003.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation at the start of this new Congress to protect those living along the California-Mexican border from harmful power plant emissions. This bill, which Congressman Duncan Hunter is also re-introducing today in the House of Representatives, will prevent power plants built in Mexico from using natural gas from the United States, unless firms operating these plants agree to comply with California's air pollution standards. Currently there are two new power plants planned for Mexicali, Mexico, a city right across the border from Imperial County, California. The Imperial Valley produces much of our Nation's wintertime vegetables. The Valley is the region in Southern California that will be impacted most by pollution from these power plants in Mexico. And since Imperial County has some of the worst air quality in the United States and one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the State, I believe these new plants must meet California emission standards. One of the Mexicali plants, which is being built by Sempra Energy, will have pollution mitigation technology to minimize the impact of air pollution on the residents of the Imperial Valley. However, the other plant, to be built by InterGen, will not. InterGen officials have repeatedly stated that their Mexicali plant will meet ``domestic standards or World Bank standards.'' The problem is these are not U.S. standards and are far below California standards. I am introducing this legislation today to make sure any plant that comes online along the California-Mexican border meets the same air quality standards as plants in California. The residents of Imperial County and the entire Southern California region deserve nothing less. I have heard from many constituents in Southern California concerned about the InterGen plant and local officials in Imperial County are adamantly opposed to the InterGen plant because the company has refused to install pollution control devices on all four operating units. This legislation has the support of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, the Imperial District, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy. This legislation will ensure energy plants along the border employ the best technology available to control pollution and protect the public health for residents of Southern California and other border regions in a similar situation. The bill will prohibit energy companies from exporting natural gas from the United States for use in Mexico unless the natural gas fired generators south of the border meet the air standards prevalent in the United States. This will effectively cut power plants off from the natural gas supply if they do not meet higher emissions standards. This legislation will not constrain power plants that were put online prior to January 1, 2003. It will apply to plants built after the new year and projects that come online in the future. This bill will only apply to power plants within 50 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. And the legislation will only apply to power plants that generate more than 50 megawatts of power. We do not want to block any moves to replace dirty diesel back-up generators with cleaner natural-gas fired small power sources. The bill calls for collaboration between the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to determine if a power plant is in compliance with relevant emission standards. I support the development of new energy projects for California because I believe we need to bring more power online. However, I do not believe the fact that we need more power in California should allow companies to take advantage of this need and use it as an excuse to devote less attention to clear air and public health. It is not unreasonable to ensure that companies making money in California energy market meet strict environmental standards. This legislation is meant to strike a balance between promoting new sources of energy south of the border and protecting the environment throughout the border region. It is not a final resolution of these cross-border issues, but I believe it is a good first step.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join my good friend, Senator Kyl, in introducing S.J. Res, 1, the Victims' Rights Amendment. Two years ago, the Senate debated a proposed constitutional amendment drafted by Senator Kyl and me to protect the rights of victims of violent crime. The amendment had been reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 12 to 5. After 82 Senators voted to proceed to consideration of the amendment, there was a vigorous debate on the floor of the Senate. Some Senators raised concerns about the amendment, saying that it was too long or that it read too much like a statute. Ultimately, in the face of a threatened filibuster, Senator Kyl and I decided to withdraw the amendment. We then hunkered down with constitutional experts, such as Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School, to see if we could revise the amendment to meet Senators' concerns. We also worked with constitutional experts at the Department of Justice and the White House, and we came up with a new and improved draft of the amendment. This new amendment provides many of the same rights as the old amendment. Specifically, the amendment would give crime victims the rights to be notified, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their case. It would ensure that their views are considered and they are treated fairly. It would ensure that their interest in a speedy resolution of the case, safety, and claims for restitution are not ignored. And it would do so in a way that would not abridge the rights of defendants or offenders, or otherwise disrupt the delicate balance of our Constitution. We had a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee did not act on the amendment. There are many reasons why we need a constitutional amendment. First, a constitutional amendment will balance the scales of justice. Currently, while criminal defendants have almost two dozen separate constitutional rights, fifteen of them provided by amendments to the U.S. Constitution, there is not a single word in the Constitution about crime victims. These rights trump the statutory and State constitutional rights of crime victims because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. To level the playing field, crime victims need rights in the U.S. Constitution. In the event of a conflict between a victim's and a defendant's rights, the court will be able to balance those rights and determine which party has the most compelling argument. Second, a constitutional amendment will fix the patchwork of victims' rights laws. Eighteen States lack state constitutional victim's rights amendment, and the 32 existing State victims' rights amendments differ from each other. Also, virtually every State has statutory protections for victims, but these vary considerably across the country. Only a Federal constitutional amendment can ensure a uniform national floor for victims' rights. Third, a constitutional amendment will restore rights that existed when the Constitution was written. It is a little known fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted, it was standard practice for victims, not public prosecutors, to prosecute criminal cases. Because victims were parties to most criminal cases, they enjoyed the basic rights to notice, to be present, and be heard. Hence, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not mention victims. Now, of course, it is extremely rare for a victim to undertake a criminal prosecution. Thus, victims have none of the basic procedural rights they used to enjoy. Victims should receive some of the modest notice and participation rights they enjoyed at the time that the Constitution was drafted. Fourth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because mere State law is insufficient. State victims' rights laws lacking the force of Federal constitutional law are often given short shrift. A Justice Department-sponsored study and other studies have found that, even in States with strong legal protections for victims' rights, many victims are denied those rights. The studies have also found that statutes are insufficient to guarantee victims' rights. Only a Federal constitutional amendment can ensure that crime victims receive the rights they are due. Fifth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because Federal statutory law is insufficient. The leading statutory alternative to the Victims' Rights Amendment would only directly cover certain violent crimes prosecuted in Federal court. Thus, it would slight more than 99 percent of victims of violent crime. We should acknowledge that Federal statutes have been tried and found wanting. It is time for us to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Oklahoma City bombing case offers another reason why we need a constitutional amendment. This case shows how even the strongest Federal statute is too weak to protect victims in the face of a defendant's constitutional rights. In that case, two Federal victims' rights statutes were not enough to give victims of the bombing a clear right to watch the trial and still testify at the sentencing, even though one of the statutes was passed with the specific purpose of allowing the victims to do just that. Let me quote from the first of these statutes: the Victims of Crime Bill of Rights, passed in 1990. That Bill of Rights provides in part that: A crime victim has the following rights: The right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless that court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial. That statute further states that Federal Government officers and employees ``engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that victims of crime are accorded the[se] rights.'' The law also provides that ``[t]his section does not create a cause of action or defense in favor of any person arising out of the failure to accord to a victim the[se] rights.'' In spite of the law, the judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case ruled, without any request from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys, that no victim who saw any portion of the case could testify about the bombing's impact at a possible sentencing hearing: The Justice Department asked the judge to exempt victims who would not be ``factual witnesses at trial'' but who might testify at a sentencing hearing about the impact of the bombing on their lives. The judge denied the motion. The victims were then given until the lunchbreak to decide whether to watch the proceedings or remain eligible to testify at a sentencing hearing. In the hour that they had, some of the victims opted to watch the proceedings; other decided to leave to remain eligible to testify at the sentencing hearing. Subsequently, the Justice Department asked the court to reconsider its order in light of the 1990 Victims' Bill of Rights. Bombing victims then filed their own motion to raise their rights under the Victims' Bill of Rights. The court denied both motions. With regard to the victims' motion, the judge held that the victims lacked standing. The judge stated that the victims would not be able to separate the ``experience of trial'' from the ``experience of loss from the conduct in question.'' The judge also alluded to concerns about the defendants' constitutional rights, the common law, and rules of evidence. The victims and DOJ separately appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. That court ruled that the victims lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution because they had no ``legally protected interest'' to be present at trial and thus had suffered no ``injury in fact'' from their exclusion. The victims and DOJ then asked the entire Tenth Circuit to review that decision. Forty-nine members of Congress, all six attorneys general in the Tenth Circuit, and many of the leading crime victims' organizations filed briefs in support of the victims. All to no avail. The Victims' Clarification Act of 1997 when then introduced in Congress. That act provided that watching a trial does not constitute grounds for denying victims the chance to provide an impact statement. This bill passed the House 414 to 13 and the Senate by unanimous consent. Two days later, President Clinton signed into law, explaining that ``when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.'' The victims then filed a motion asserting a right to attend the trial under the new law. However, the judge declined to apply the law as written. He concluded that ``any motions raising constitutional questions about this legislation would be premature and would present questions issues that are not now ripe for decision.'' Moreover, he held that it could address issues of possible prejudicial impact from attending the trial by interviewing the witnesses after the trial. The judge also refused to grant the victims a hearing on the application of the new law, concluding that his ruling rendered their request ``moot.'' The victims then faced a painful decision: watch the trial or preserve their right to testify at the sentencing hearing. Many victims gave up their right to watch the trial as a result. A constitutional amendment would help ensure that victims of a domestic terrorist attack such as the Oklahoma City bombing have standing and that their arguments for a right to be present are not dismissed as ``unripe.'' A constitutional amendment would give victims of violent crime an unambiguous right to watch a trial and still testify at sentencing. There is strong and wide support for a constitutional amendment. I am pleased that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have endorsed the amendment. As the President put it last year, ``The Feinstein-Kyl amendment was written with care, and strikes a proper balance. Our legal system properly protects the rights of the accused in the Constitution, but it does not provide similar protection for the rights of victims, and that must change. The protection of victims' rights is one of those rare instances when amending the Constitution is the right thing to do. And the Feinstein-Kyl crime victims' rights amendment is the right way to do it.'' I greatly appreciate their support. And I am also pleased that both former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore have all expressed support for a constitutional amendment on victim's right. Moreover, in the last Congress, the Victims' Rights Amendment was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 28 Senators. I have spoken to many of my colleagues about the amendment we introduce today and I am hopeful that it will receive even more support in this Congress. In addition I would vote the following: Both the Democratic and Republican Party Platforms call for a victims' rights amendment. Governors in 49 out of 50 States have called for an amendment. Four former U.S. Attorneys General, including Attorney General Reno, support an amendment. Attorney General Ashcroft support an amendment. Forty State attorneys general support an amendment. Major national victims' rights groups--including Parents of Murdered Children, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, and the National Organization for Victim Assistance, support the amendment. Many law enforcement groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Nation Troops' Coalition, the International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the California District Attorneys Association support an amendment. Constitutional scholars, such as Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe, support an amendment. The amendment has received strong support around the country. Thirty- two States have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of almost 80 percent. I am delighted to join my good friend Senator Jon Kyl in sponsoring the victims' rights amendment, and I look forward to its adoption by this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter dated April 15, 2002 from Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address the fact that by the end of the year more than 2 million Americans will have exhausted their unemployment insurance. There is no more pressing issue facing our Nation's workforce, and yet Congress has chosen to put partisanship ahead of what nearly everyone agrees is smart policy. By passing widely divergent bills, the House and the Senate have virtually ensured that on December 28 of this year thousands of workers will be in the impossible position of trying to feed, clothe, and house their families with no work and no benefits. I strongly support the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, a bipartisan compromise bill which was introduced in the Senate in late September. This bill, introduced by Senators Wellstone, Clinton, and Kennedy, with the support of 33 Senators, extends unemployment benefits nationwide for 13 weeks, and provides 20 weeks of extended benefits for California and other high unemployment States. It provides crucial temporary assistance to those who have been hardest hit by the current economic downturn, and provides them a chance to support themselves and their families while they look for work. Although the compromise bill passed by the Senate does not include the 20-week extension that is vital to States such as California, which suffer from a higher unemployment rate than the national average, it provides a meaningful extension that could help American families, especially during the Christmas holiday. Let me stress that this bill is the product of bipartisan compromise, and is supported by Senator Nickles and other Republicans who have been vocal on this issue. At the moment, millions of Americans have lost their job and are unable to find another, despite their efforts to reenter the labor force. The number of Americans unable to find employment has increased from 5.7 million at the end of 2000 to more than 8.2 million today. Even more disturbing, due to continued economic weakness, the number of Americans who have been out of work for over 6 months has almost doubled from 900,000 to 1.5 million in the past year. Between May and July of this year, approximately 900,000 workers exhausted the benefits made available through the extension that was passed in March. By the end of this year, that number will increase to 2.1 million individuals. Those are the individuals at greatest risk for falling through the social safety net we have provided for them. This illustrates the critical need for an extension of unemployment insurance that makes sense. When the national economy was booming 2 years ago, California was particularly blessed. California's economy grew at double-digit rates, and California become the fifth-largest economy in the world. Billions of dollars of investment flowed into our State, and thousands of talented workers moved to California to take advantages of opportunities in Silicon Valley and other growth engines of the New Economy. Now that picture is dramatically different. A recent report by a group of economists at UCLA predicted that California's unemployment rate will rise to 6.5 percent next year, and that nonfarm jobs in the San Francisco Bay area contracted by an annual rate of 4.6 percent between April and June of this year. After dropping to a decade-long low of 4.7 percent in December of 2000, the unemployment rate is back up to 6.4 percent as of the end of October. The number of Californians receiving unemployment benefits has increased to 470,000 from 430,000 1 year ago. During this period of great economic hardship, we have a duty to give people the chance to get back onto their feet. This is an obligation that we have met in the past, most recently when faced with an economic downturn during the first Bush administration. The Senate voted in 1991 to extend temporary unemployment insurance on five separate occasions. Each time such extensions were approved by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Therefore, I call on the House and Senate leadership to ensure that an extension of unemployment benefits for a full 13 weeks be the first item considered during the 108th Congress. Although that will not prevent the expiration of benefits for many Americans, it will provide a fairly rapid restoration of benefits to those who will be cut off at the end of the year. With that goal in mind, I have sent a letter to Speaker Hastert and Senator Lott with the signatures of more than 40 of my colleagues in the Senate, asking them to bring up an extension of unemployment insurance immediately upon reconvening next year. Let me be clear: by ducking this issue we seem to be hoping that this problem will disappear. It will not, and if we do not address it now, we will not be living up to our obligation to the families of this Nation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I voted for the Thompson substitute amendment to the Homeland Security Act--the largest restructuring of the Federal Government in over 50 years and perhaps the most important legislation considered in this Congress. This historic legislation would create a new department combining some 22 Federal agencies with what would amount to about 200,000 Federal employees. The bill would create one of the biggest departments in the U.S. Government, with an initial annual budget of at least $37 billion. I voted for this legislation because our current terrorism policy is terribly disjointed and fragmented. I have long supported additional efforts to consolidate and coordinate our terrorism policy. Currently, homeland security functions are scattered among more than 100 different Government organizations. There is much unnecessary overlap and duplication. There is also a failure to communicate and share information--making it hard to for the law enforcement and intelligence community to ``connect the dots'' to prevent a terrorist attack. I also voted for the bill because I believe our country is currently at great risk. Terrorists are doing all they can to launch a catastrophic attack on our homeland. The status quo is simply unacceptable. For example, just last week, I chaired a subcommittee hearing on a new report from released by Senators Hart and Rudman. Their report is chilling--and its conclusion distributing. It reads: A year after September 11th, 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. The creation of a Homeland Security Department is critical to our efforts to try to prevent another devastating terrorist attack against us. Now, for the first time in our history, this Nation will have one Federal agency charged with the primary mission of preventing terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing the vulnerability of the U.S. to terrorism at home, and minimizing damage and assisting in the recovery from any attacks that may occur. The new department will have four major divisions: border transportation and security, emergency preparedness and response, science and technology, and information analysis and infrastructure protection. The border directorate will include a number of key homeland security agencies, including Customs and the Transportation Security Agency. The emergency preparedness directorate will include FEMA and some other smaller response agencies. The science directorate will include a number of programs and activities of the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, and some agencies. The information analysis directorate will synthesize and analyze homeland security information from intelligence and land enforcement agencies throughout the government. This crucial division will identify and assess terrorist threats and vulnerabilities, issue warnings, and act to prevent terrorist acts against critical infrastructures such as bridges, dams, and electric power grids. Other agencies such as the Coast Guard and Secret Service will be moved to the new department, and there will be an office to coordinate with state and local governments. The legislation also creates a Homeland Security Council in the White House to coordinate the domestic response to terrorist threats. I am very pleased that this legislation does not neglect State and local law enforcement and first responders. No homeland security solution can be just federal. The reality is the 650,000 State and local law enforcement officers are additional eyes and ears in the war on terrorism. They cannot operate deaf, dumb, and blind. Moreover, in the event of a terrorist attack, the first people on the scene will be local firefighters, emergency medical technicians, National Guardsman, and other people in the local community. The need proper information, organization, training, and equipment. Thus, I am pleased that this legislation includes a measure I introduced to increase state and local access to federally collected terrorism information. This legislation directs the President to establish procedures for sharing homeland security information with state and local officials, ensures that our current information sharing systems and computers are capable of sharing such information, and increases communications between government officials. The bill also includes a broad exemption under the Freedom of Information Act for cybercrime and cyberterrorism information. This exemption will encourage the private companies that opoerate over 85 percent of our critical infrastructure to share information about computer break-ins with law enforcement--so criminals and terrorists can be stopped before they strike again and severely punished. I have long advocated for such an exemption, and am pleased that it ended up in the final bill. While I strongly support the creation of a Homeland Security Department, I am disappointed that the bill we passed today includes a number of extraneous special interest provisions and lacks language to ensure appropriate oversight and transparency. In addition, there is nothing in this legislation addressing what is perhaps the most pressing homeland security problem we face today: the vulnerability of our ports to terrorism. The issue of port security was left to separate legislation that was passed last Thursday. In my view, that legislation does not go far enough. I believe that Congress needs to return to this issue next year and pass more comprehensive legislation. The Hart-Rudman Independent Terrorism Task Force, for example, recently issued a report describing major holes in the security of our ports and endorsed such a comprehensive, layered approach. This new comprehensive legislation would be based on S. 2895, the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002, which I introduced last summer with Senators, Kyl, Hutchinson, and Snowe. The Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002 is the result of hearings we have had in the Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as my testimony two years ago to the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports. The main section in the bill would create a Container Profiling Plan that would focus our nation's limited inspection resources on high-risk cargo. In addition, the bill also contains provisions requiring: earlier and more detailed container information; comprehensive radiation detection; heightened container security measures--including high-security seals; restricted access to ports; increased safety for sensitive port information; enhanced inspection of cargo at foreign facilities; stronger penalties for incorrect cargo information; improved crime data collection; upgraded Customs service facilities; and better regulation of ocean transport intermediaries. Unfortunately, we were not able to get much of this Bill included in the conference legislation that passed last week. Indeed, the Conference Bill even omits a number of security provisions included in S. 1214 as it passed the Senate. That is why, in my view, we will need to revisit this issue early in the 108th Congress. I plan to work with my colleagues to fine-tune my legislation and reintroduce it. I hope that my colleagues will support it. I am also disappointed with this bill because it does not contain the entire ``Unaccompanied Child Protection Act,'' bipartisan legislation I introduced at the beginning of this Congress and that was included as Title XII of the Lieberman substitute to H.R. 5005. I have spoken on this issue in some detail already, but feel compelled to reiterate a few points. Last year, over 5300 children came to this country unaccompanied by a parent or guardian and were held by the INS, many of them in detention facilities. these children have no rights. Many of them can't speak English, they can be detained for years, they have no resort to counsel, and they don't understand the process. We all remember the Elian Gonzalez case. Every year, there are thousands of Elians. But unlike Elian, these children have no family members to help them navigate the immigration process. They are completely at the mercy of a complex bureaucratic and legal system they cannot begin to understand. The good news is that this bill transfers authority over the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children from the INS to the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services. The bad news is that almost all the ``help'' provisions for these children are left out. This bill is lacking because it does not provide either for a guardian ad litem, or pro bono legal assistance. This is insufficient, and it is my full intention to reintroduce legislation in the next session to redress this, and to include pro bono counsel and guardian ad litem provisions. Protecting children, on the one hand, must not prevent us from devising an immigration policy that protects us from those that would do America harm. We do not want to burden the Secretary of Homeland Security with policy issues unrelated to the threat of terrorism. The Department will have a daunting mission as it is, and must never lose that focus. Two positive steps regarding immigration include the transfer of the visa issuance process from the State Department to the Department of Homeland Security, thereby giving it the regulatory and oversight authority over issuances and denials. It also prohibits third-party visa processing, referred to as ``Visa Express'', to ensure closer scrutiny of visa applications and to preserve the integrity of the visa issuance process. These reforms are essential. Overall, while this legislation's shortcomings cause me serious concern, I believe that they pale in comparison to the dangers facing America, both immediately and in the long-term, at home and abroad. The terrorist threat to the United States is far too real, and in our freedom-loving country we must now do everything we can to protect our people. And this, after all, is the Federal Government's paramount task-- protecting our citizens. Further delay in creating a Department of Homeland Security would only leave us increasingly vulnerable--and this is something we simply cannot afford.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I voted for the Thompson substitute amendment to the Homeland Security Act--the largest restructuring of the Federal Government in over 50 years and perhaps the most important legislation considered in this Congress. This historic legislation would create a new department combining some 22 Federal agencies with what would amount to about 200,000 Federal employees. The bill would create one of the biggest departments in the U.S. Government, with an initial annual budget of at least $37 billion. I voted for this legislation because our current terrorism policy is terribly disjointed and fragmented. I have long supported additional efforts to consolidate and coordinate our terrorism policy. Currently, homeland security functions are scattered among more than 100 different Government organizations. There is much unnecessary overlap and duplication. There is also a failure to communicate and share information--making it hard to for the law enforcement and intelligence community to ``connect the dots'' to prevent a terrorist attack. I also voted for the bill because I believe our country is currently at great risk. Terrorists are doing all they can to launch a catastrophic attack on our homeland. The status quo is simply unacceptable. For example, just last week, I chaired a subcommittee hearing on a new report from released by Senators Hart and Rudman. Their report is chilling--and its conclusion distributing. It reads: A year after September 11th, 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. The creation of a Homeland Security Department is critical to our efforts to try to prevent another devastating terrorist attack against us. Now, for the first time in our history, this Nation will have one Federal agency charged with the primary mission of preventing terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing the vulnerability of the U.S. to terrorism at home, and minimizing damage and assisting in the recovery from any attacks that may occur. The new department will have four major divisions: border transportation and security, emergency preparedness and response, science and technology, and information analysis and infrastructure protection. The border directorate will include a number of key homeland security agencies, including Customs and the Transportation Security Agency. The emergency preparedness directorate will include FEMA and some other smaller response agencies. The science directorate will include a number of programs and activities of the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, and some agencies. The information analysis directorate will synthesize and analyze homeland security information from intelligence and land enforcement agencies throughout the government. This crucial division will identify and assess terrorist threats and vulnerabilities, issue warnings, and act to prevent terrorist acts against critical infrastructures such as bridges, dams, and electric power grids. Other agencies such as the Coast Guard and Secret Service will be moved to the new department, and there will be an office to coordinate with state and local governments. The legislation also creates a Homeland Security Council in the White House to coordinate the domestic response to terrorist threats. I am very pleased that this legislation does not neglect State and local law enforcement and first responders. No homeland security solution can be just federal. The reality is the 650,000 State and local law enforcement officers are additional eyes and ears in the war on terrorism. They cannot operate deaf, dumb, and blind. Moreover, in the event of a terrorist attack, the first people on the scene will be local firefighters, emergency medical technicians, National Guardsman, and other people in the local community. The need proper information, organization, training, and equipment. Thus, I am pleased that this legislation includes a measure I introduced to increase state and local access to federally collected terrorism information. This legislation directs the President to establish procedures for sharing homeland security information with state and local officials, ensures that our current information sharing systems and computers are capable of sharing such information, and increases communications between government officials. The bill also includes a broad exemption under the Freedom of Information Act for cybercrime and cyberterrorism information. This exemption will encourage the private companies that opoerate over 85 percent of our critical infrastructure to share information about computer break-ins with law enforcement--so criminals and terrorists can be stopped before they strike again and severely punished. I have long advocated for such an exemption, and am pleased that it ended up in the final bill. While I strongly support the creation of a Homeland Security Department, I am disappointed that the bill we passed today includes a number of extraneous special interest provisions and lacks language to ensure appropriate oversight and transparency. In addition, there is nothing in this legislation addressing what is perhaps the most pressing homeland security problem we face today: the vulnerability of our ports to terrorism. The issue of port security was left to separate legislation that was passed last Thursday. In my view, that legislation does not go far enough. I believe that Congress needs to return to this issue next year and pass more comprehensive legislation. The Hart-Rudman Independent Terrorism Task Force, for example, recently issued a report describing major holes in the security of our ports and endorsed such a comprehensive, layered approach. This new comprehensive legislation would be based on S. 2895, the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002, which I introduced last summer with Senators, Kyl, Hutchinson, and Snowe. The Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002 is the result of hearings we have had in the Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as my testimony two years ago to the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports. The main section in the bill would create a Container Profiling Plan that would focus our nation's limited inspection resources on high-risk cargo. In addition, the bill also contains provisions requiring: earlier and more detailed container information; comprehensive radiation detection; heightened container security measures--including high-security seals; restricted access to ports; increased safety for sensitive port information; enhanced inspection of cargo at foreign facilities; stronger penalties for incorrect cargo information; improved crime data collection; upgraded Customs service facilities; and better regulation of ocean transport intermediaries. Unfortunately, we were not able to get much of this Bill included in the conference legislation that passed last week. Indeed, the Conference Bill even omits a number of security provisions included in S. 1214 as it passed the Senate. That is why, in my view, we will need to revisit this issue early in the 108th Congress. I plan to work with my colleagues to fine-tune my legislation and reintroduce it. I hope that my colleagues will support it. I am also disappointed with this bill because it does not contain the entire ``Unaccompanied Child Protection Act,'' bipartisan legislation I introduced at the beginning of this Congress and that was included as Title XII of the Lieberman substitute to H.R. 5005. I have spoken on this issue in some detail already, but feel compelled to reiterate a few points. Last year, over 5300 children came to this country unaccompanied by a parent or guardian and were held by the INS, many of them in detention facilities. these children have no rights. Many of them can't speak English, they can be detained for years, they have no resort to counsel, and they don't understand the process. We all remember the Elian Gonzalez case. Every year, there are thousands of Elians. But unlike Elian, these children have no family members to help them navigate the immigration process. They are completely at the mercy of a complex bureaucratic and legal system they cannot begin to understand. The good news is that this bill transfers authority over the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children from the INS to the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services. The bad news is that almost all the ``help'' provisions for these children are left out. This bill is lacking because it does not provide either for a guardian ad litem, or pro bono legal assistance. This is insufficient, and it is my full intention to reintroduce legislation in the next session to redress this, and to include pro bono counsel and guardian ad litem provisions. Protecting children, on the one hand, must not prevent us from devising an immigration policy that protects us from those that would do America harm. We do not want to burden the Secretary of Homeland Security with policy issues unrelated to the threat of terrorism. The Department will have a daunting mission as it is, and must never lose that focus. Two positive steps regarding immigration include the transfer of the visa issuance process from the State Department to the Department of Homeland Security, thereby giving it the regulatory and oversight authority over issuances and denials. It also prohibits third-party visa processing, referred to as ``Visa Express'', to ensure closer scrutiny of visa applications and to preserve the integrity of the visa issuance process. These reforms are essential. Overall, while this legislation's shortcomings cause me serious concern, I believe that they pale in comparison to the dangers facing America, both immediately and in the long-term, at home and abroad. The terrorist threat to the United States is far too real, and in our freedom-loving country we must now do everything we can to protect our people. And this, after all, is the Federal Government's paramount task-- protecting our citizens. Further delay in creating a Department of Homeland Security would only leave us increasingly vulnerable--and this is something we simply cannot afford.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the bill before us does not contain in its entirety the Unaccompanied Child Protection Act, bipartisan legislation I introduced at the beginning of this Congress and that was included as Title XII of the Lieberman substitute to H.R. 5005. I am pleased, however, that the measure contains one key component of that legislation: the transfer of authority over the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children to the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services. This is key for two reasons: First, we do not want to burden the Secretary of Homeland Security with policy issues unrelated to the threat of terrorism. The Department will have a huge and important mission when this legislation is done and its attention should be focused on that mission. Second, the federal government has a special responsibility to protect the children in its custody. For too long, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, has not lived up to that responsibility. The children's provisions in this legislation is an important first step in correcting decades of questionable practices with regards to children that come under the agency's watch. As I mentioned before, this is an important first step in providing protection for unaccompanied alien children. I ask my friend from Arizona, who is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and part of the leadership on the other side of the aisle, if he would agree to work with me next year to further refine the important reforms relating to the treatment of unaccompanied alien children.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Arizona. You may be interested to know that I first became involved in this issue when I heard about a young 15-year old Chinese girl who stood before a U.S. immigration court facing deportation proceedings. She had found her way to the United States as a stowaway in a container ship captured off of Guam, hoping to escape the repression she had experienced in her home country. Although she had committed no crime, the INS sent her to a Portland jail, where she languished for seven months. When the INS brought her before an immigration judge, she stood before him confused, not understanding the proceedings against her. Tears streamed down her face, yet she could not wipe them away because her hands were handcuffed and chained to her waist. While the young girl eventually received asylum in our country, she unnecessarily faced an ordeal no child should bear under our immigration system. This young Chinese girl represents only one of 5,000 foreign-born children who, without parents or legal guardians to protect them, are discovered in the United States each year in need of protection. So you see, this issue calls for clearer policy direction from Congress. I thank my friend and look forward to working with him in the beginning of the 108th Congress.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from California, Senator Barbara Boxer, to commend and congratulate the Anaheim Angels for winning the 2002 World Series 3 weeks ago. The Angels are world champions for the first time in their 42-year history. After defeating the New York Yankees in the first round of the playoffs and then going on to beat the Minnesota Twins for the American League Championship, the Angels battled my hometown team, the San Francisco Giants, in an exciting all-California World Series. The Angels have proven to the world their outstanding ability to win and work as a team. Led by manager Mike Scioscia and players Scott Spezio, Garret Anderson, and Darin Erstad the Angels offense destroyed even the mightiest pitchers through October. Most Valuable Player Troy Glaus batted an astounding .385 average with three homeruns in the seven-game series. Another key player in the Angels' march to glory is Troy Percival. The veteran closing pitcher stifled the Giants' hitters in pivotal game 7 and throughout the playoffs. Furthermore, Troy Percival would not have been able to perform his masterful pitching had it not been for starting pitcher John Lackey who pitched five strong innings in game 7. Manager Mike Scioscia's leadership proved to be invaluable to the team. His experience as a catcher with Southern California's other major league franchise, the Los Angeles Dodgers, helped the Angels through what started as Anaheim's worst season ever and turned it into a glorious year. The Anaheim Angels truly epitomize the importance of teamwork, as nearly every member of the roster contributed to their phenomenal season. It should be noted that the championship could not have been won without the dedication of the entire team: David Eckstein, Tim Salmon, Adam Kennedy, Bengie Molina, Brad Fullmer, Jarrod Washburn, Kevin Appier, Brendan Donnelly, Ben Weber, Ramon Ortiz, and Francisco Rodriguez. I also would like to congratulate chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company Michael Eisner, General Manager Bill Stoneman and all of the Angels' staff on their hard work assembling Anaheim's first championship team. I should also congratulate Jackie Autry, widow of former Angels owner Gene Autry. One of her husband's greatest dreams was to see the Angels win a World Series. And, most importantly, I would like to thank the Angels fans in Southern California who have earned national recognition for their enthusiasm and unbridled support of their team. Finally, it is nearly impossible to congratulate the Angels or their fans without mentioning the ``Rally Monkey,'' the adorable mascot that has become Anaheim's symbol of resilience and refusal to give up hope in the most difficult situations. The Angels have begun a new era of baseball in Southern California and will certainly defend their title with the same heart and determination that brought them to the World Series this year. The Anaheim Angels are a team with an unquenchable desire to win. They have made the city of Anaheim, the county of Orange, and all of California proud.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. I applaud Senator Hollings, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, the Ranking Member, and other members of the Port Security Conference Committee for their efforts, but I believe this legislation can best be summed up as ``too little, too late.'' The Senate passed Port Security Legislation last December, yet only now, almost a year later, is the Congress sending this bill to the President. Moreover, once this legislation passes, it will be years before the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security implement effective security measures at our 361 seaports. I would have preferred seeing the Conferees embrace other ideas to improve port security such as the legislation I introduced with Senators Kyl, Snowe, and Hutchison. Instead, the Conferees rejected many proposals on port security and slimmed down the Senate Bill so that it is now one part security and three parts Coast Guard authorization language that has nothing to do with security. I believe Congress ``missed the boat'' with this legislation and squandered an opportunity to take aggressive action to erect a formidable barrier at our seaports. We know ports present optimal targets to terrorists. And we know al- Qaida operatives are coming after us. As CIA director George Tenet said recently before the Intelligence Committee, of which I am a member: ``al-Qaida is in an execution phase and intends to strike us both here and overseas; that's unambiguous as far as I am concerned.'' And this week we learned of a new tape that seems to be by Osama bin Laden, which made clear al-Qaida intends to go after us again soon. The October 2002 report by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman demonstrates that our ports remain especially vulnerable even more than a year after September 11. The report points out, ``Only the tiniest percentage of containers, ships, trucks, and trains that enter the United States each day are subject to examination, and a weapon of mass destruction could well be hidden among this cargo.'' The Hart-Rudman report recommends revising transportation security because ``the vulnerabilities are greater and the stakes are higher in the sea and land modes than in commercial aviation. Systems such as those used in the aviation sector, which start from the assumption that every passenger and every bag of luggage poses an equal risk, must give way to more intelligence-driven and layered security approaches that emphasize prescreening and monitoring based on risk-criteria.'' Since we cannot inspect every ship and every container, I introduced the ``Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act'' earlier this year to establish a system for container profiling. The Feinstein-Kyl- Snowe-Hutchison Port Security Bill would also push U.S. security scrutiny beyond our Nation's borders to intercept cargo before it arrives near America's shores. This complements the strategy Customs Commissioner Robert C. Bonner is in the process of implementing. To prevent a weapon of mass destruction from getting to the U.S. in the first place, Customs has entered into formal agreements with a handful of foreign governments to station U.S. inspectors at ports overseas to profile high risk cargo and target suspicious shipments for inspection. The Customs Service is working to put groups of U.S. experts at the top 20 ports as soon as possible and they are moving at an impressive pace. Hitting the 20 port threshold is essential because together, these ports account for approximately 70 percent of the 5.7 million containers shipped by sea to the U.S. annually. We have known for a long time that America's ports needed an extensive security strategy and upgrade. In the fall of 2000, a comprehensive report was issued by the ``Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports.'' I testified before the Commission and I believe the group's report serves as a very thorough primer on seaport security issues. While often out of the public eye, ports across the United States are our nation's economic gateways. Every year U.S. ports handle over 800 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $600 billion. Excluding trade with Mexico and Canada, America's ports handle 95 percent of U.S. trade. Two of the busiest ports in the nation are in California, at Los Angeles / Long Beach and at Oakland. S. 1214, the Senate-passed bill written by Chairman Hollings and members of the Commerce Committee, was drafted before the September 11 terrorist attacks to incorporate the recommendations made by the Interagency Commission into law. While changes were made to this legislation before the Senate passed it in December of 2001 to focus more on antiterrorism, I believe the Conferees could have taken more aggressive action to improve the bill. I would like to cite a few examples to show how this Conference Report is weaker than the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act I have introduced. The Feinstein-Kyl-Snowe-Hutchison port security bill establishes a comprehensive risk profiling plan for the Customs Service to focus their limited inspection capabilities on high-risk cargo containers. However, the only mention of such a plan in the Maritime Security Act conference report is this paragraph of report language: ``A vessel screening system which provides shipping intelligence and analysis can be utilized to identify those vessels requiring close inspection by the Coast Guard and other agencies. We urge the Coast Guard and port authorities to include vessel risk profiling in their enhanced security procedures.'' The Feinstein-Kyl-Snowe-Hutchison port security bill strengthens U.S. security scrutiny beyond our Nation's borders to monitor and inspect cargo and containers before they arrive on America's shores. However, the conferees of this Maritime Transportation Security Act only required foreign ports to be evaluated and authorized a program for U.S. officials to train foreign security officers abroad. The Feinstein-Kyl-Snowe-Hutchison port security bill imposes steep monetary sanctions and criminal penalties for incorrect cargo manifest information or failure to comply with filing requirements. However, the conferees of this Maritime Transportation Security Act only authorized civil penalties of up to $25,000 for a violation. The Feinstein-Kyl-Snowe-Hutchison port security bill requires the Transportation Security Administration to set standards to ensure each port has a secure perimeter, secure parking facilities, controlled points of access into the port, sufficient lighting, buildings with secure doors and windows and an alarm. However, the conferees of this Maritime Transportation Security Act only required vulnerability assessments and a National Maritime Transportation Security Plan. The Feinstein-Kyl-Snowe-Hutchison port security bill requires the use of high security seals and electronic tags on all containers coming into the U.S. and requires empty containers destined for U.S. ports to be sealed. However, the conferees of this Maritime Transportation Security Act only mandated the development of performance standards for seals and locks on cargo containers. I have pointed out several areas where I believe the Conferees could have taken more aggressive steps, but I do want to endorse many of the security measures in this conference report such as the requirement for all workers in a secure area of the port to have a transportation security card and I support the $15 million annual authorization for 5 years to fund research and development efforts. I thank Senator Hollings, Senator McCain, and other members of the Commerce Committee for the work they have done on this important issue. I look forward to continue to work with the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee to address the threats to our ports. I believe additional legislation will be essential to follow up on this security bill. We must be better prepared for a terrorist attack than we were last year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, several days after this terrible tragedy, the loss of our beloved colleague, Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, his daughter Marcia, three loyal members of his staff and two pilots, we still remain in a state of shocked disbelief. We have lost a unique and gifted man, who embodied not only the independent spirit of his home state, but one that resides at the very heart of the American soul. A few years ago, when speaking on this floor about the loss of his legislative director, Paul claimed that ``sometimes the only realists are the dreamers. . . .'' In many ways he could have been referring to himself, the cerebral political science professor willing to stand alone, when necessary, for what he believed. He had the common touch, and was an impassioned speaker, noted as much for his big heart as for his sharp mind. Elected as the only new Senator in 1990, Paul's crusading voice would not have had the same impact in the House of Representatives as it did in this Chamber. Only in the Senate could he have helped to lead the successful opposition, in 1991, to an energy bill that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, or five years later force a vote on a minimum wage increase. For two terms he fought tirelessly for increased funding for education at every level, healthcare that was accessible and affordable for all Americans, sweeping campaign finance reform, and farm legislation that sought to protect the small farmers. While he was, on the one hand, an ideological liberal, willing to speak with his conscience, Paul was also able to work with Republican colleagues on many occasions, and he was responsible for passing important bipartisan legislation, most notably the expanded insurance coverage for mental illnesses, with Senator Domenici. But Paul Wellstone's commitment to social justice did not stop at our borders. He was an outspoken champion of the poor and the powerless around the world, in Latin America, Asia and Africa. I remember when, back in 1996, I voiced concern over the plight of women and girls under the reactionary rule of the Taliban, Paul was one of the few who was receptive to the need for the United States to respond to such violations. In 1999, Paul and I introduced the ``International Trafficking of Women and Children Victim Protection Act,'' which established an interagency task force to monitor and combat trafficking, provided assistance to other countries that met minimum international standards, and withheld U.S. non-humanitarian assistance to countries that failed to meet these standards. To his eternal credit, it is worth noting that Paul had originally introduced his own bill, which contained much tougher criminal provisions and stronger protections for victims. He was a leading advocate for Tibetan autonomy, able to work closely with his ideological nemesis, Jesse Helms. In fact, the last time I worked with Paul was in cosponsoring an act to safeguard the cultural, religious, and ethnic identity of the Tibetan people and to encourage further dialog between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government. We must not forget that the world has also lost Sheila, Paul's wonderful wife of almost 40 years, and a passionate campaigner against domestic violence, and for the need to create violence-free families. Hers was a noble cause, a critical fight, that must be continued. Minnesota has produced some of America's most eloquent, committed, and honorable leaders. Hubert Humphrey, Harold Stassen, Eugene McCarthy, and Walter Mondale come quickly to mind. Even if he had not met such a tragic and untimely end, Paul Wellstone would have surely earned his place among this distinguished group. The fact that he has left us so abruptly, and left all of us so sad, will not diminish his achievements, nor weaken his message. To quote Paul: I still believe that government can be a force of good in people's lives. We in the Senate should take these words to heart, just as we were truly honored to have had him among us. We are all the better to have known him and worked with him. He will be sorely missed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend and congratulate the two teams from California who will compete for the 2002 World Series Championship: the National League Champion San Francisco Giants, and the American League Champion Anaheim Angels. This will be the fourth All-California World Series--following the 1974 and 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers-Oakland Athletics match-ups and the 1989 ``Bay Bridge Series'' between the Giants and the Athletics--and I am confident it will go down in history as one of the best. Both teams have beaten the odds and overcome huge obstacles to advance to the fall classic. In fact, this will be the first World Series between two wild-card teams. My hometown team, the Giants, won the National League Wild Card with a 95 and 66 record, edging another California team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, by 3\1/2\ games. They then defeated the heavily favored Atlanta Braves in the National League Divisional Series 3 games to 2, before finishing off a tough and determined St. Louis Cardinals team 4 games to 1, to win their third National League Pennant since moving to San Francisco in 1958. The Anaheim Angels overcame a 6 and 14 start to win the American League Wild Card with a 99 and 63 record, just 4 games behind yet another California team, the Oakland Athletics. They upset the New York Yankees in the American League Divisional Series 3 games to 1 and defeated the Minnesota Twins 4 games to 1, to win the first American League Pennant in the 42-year history of the Angels organization. I only wish Gene Autry had lived to see his beloved team succeed with such brilliance. The Giants and Angels epitomize the word ``team.'' Each has its share of All-Stars, but they have advanced to the final round because of the dedication and hard work of each player. Everyone knows the Giants are led by four-time National League Most Valuable Player, newest member of the 600 Home Run club and 2002 National League Batting Champion, Barry Bonds. But Barry would be the first to say that the Giants would not be where they are without the contributions of players such as National League Championship Series Most Valuable Player Benito Santiago, David Bell, Jeff Kent, J.T. Snow, and pitchers Russ Ortiz, Jason Schmidt, Kirk Rueter and Rob Nenn. The list goes on. And, what Giants fan will ever forget Kenny Lofton, a center-fielder acquired in a mid-season trade, who drove in the winning run in game 5 of the National League Championship Series with a two-out base-hit? The Angels got to the World Series by hitting .320 as a team in the postseason and scoring 60 runs in 9 games. They are led by David Eckstein, Garret Anderson, Troy Glaus, Tim Salmon, and pitchers Troy Percival, Jarrod Washburn, and 20-year-old rookie, Felix Rodriguez. American League Championship Series Most Valuable Player Adam Kennedy made history by becoming only the fifth player--following the likes of Hall of Famers Babe Ruth, Reggie Jackson, and George Brett--to hit three home runs in a playoff game in the deciding game 5 of the American League Championship Series. Every great team has a great manager and the Giants and the Angels have two of the best: three-time National League Manager of the Year Dusty Baker and Mike Scioscia, who has led the Angels to a World Series in only his third year as manager. Former teammates on the Los Angeles Dodgers, both set high standards for their teams, stuck with them through thick and thin, and provided the leadership for success. Finally I want to pay tribute to the front office staffs of both organizations: President and managing partner Peter Magowan, executive vice-president and chief operating officer Larry Baer, and general manager Brian Sabean of the Giants and chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company Michael Eisner and general manager Bill Stoneman of the Angels. Not only have they built championship franchises, but they have established the Giants and Angels as class organizations. Normally, the Senators from the States of the teams represented in the World Series place a friendly wager on the outcome. This year, Senator Boxer and I will simply take pleasure in watching two California teams battle for the title. From Edison Field to Pacific Bell Park, each game will showcase a different part of California and the great fans of both teams. The Giants and the Angels have done California proud and may the best team win.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to state that, after much deliberation, I have decided to vote for the resolution introduced by Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh and McCain. In two prior floor statements, I have expressed my views. I serve as the senior Senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office--and with no other factors--I would have to vote against this resolution. But as a member of the Intelligence Committee, as someone who has read and discussed and studied the history of Iraq, the record of obfuscation and the terror Saddam Hussein has sown, one comes to the conclusion that he remains a consequential threat. Although the ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida are tenuous, there should be no question that his entire government is forged and held together by terror: The terror of secret police in station wagons on street corners watching; The terror forged through assassinations and brutal murders of anyone who disagrees with him; And yes even of his own family members. While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography--it can be accomplished in a number of different ways--which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive. I supported the Levin amendment, which authorized use of force pursuant to U.N. Security Council action, because it was the strongest resolution supporting a multilateral effort. I believe a multilateral effort, through the United Nations, provides a strong moral imprimatur and as such is preferable to America's taking preemptive action that could have consequences tomorrow and years after that--consequences we cannot imagine or even begin to understand today. The original resolution sent to Congress by the President would have authorized a broad and sweeping use of force whenever or wherever he deemed necessary--literally any place on earth. It would have authorized the newly promulgated national security strategy of unilateral preemptive use of force in the defense of the nation in the war on terror. The resolution before us does not grant such a sweeping use of force. Rather, the use of force is confined to Iraq and targeted toward forcing Iraq to comply with 16 Security Council resolutions passed in the wake of the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Most importantly, I believe the Lieberman resolution becomes a catalyst to encourage prompt, forceful and effective action by the United Nations to compel this long sought-after and much-evaded disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. Disarming Iraq under Saddam Hussein is necessary and vital to the safety and security of America, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East--let there be no doubt about this. But the decision to cast this vote does not come lightly. I continue to have serious concerns that there are those in the administration who would seek to use this authorization for a unilateral, preemptive attack against Iraq. I believe this would be a terrible mistake. But I am reassured by statements made by the President in his address to the United Nations on September 12, which conveyed a major shift in the administration's approach--turning away from a preemptive strategy and, instead, engaging and challenging the U.N. Security Council to compel Iraq's disarmament and back this with force. I deeply believe that it is vital for the U.N. Security Council to approve a new, robust resolution requiring full and unconditional access to search for and destroy all weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the Security Council has not yet taken this action. Nor do we, at this time, know if they will. If one believes Iraq is a real threat, and I do, and if the United Nations fails to act, then the only alternative is military action led by the United States. Ironically, this authorization of use of force may well prompt the Security Council to act. Because if they do not, the United Nations becomes a paper tiger unable to enforce its mandates and unwilling to meet the challenge of this new day of danger. For the past 11 years, Saddam Hussein has prevaricated, manipulated, deceived and violated every agreement he has made to disarm. If the past is prologue, this record means that arms inspections, alone, will not force disarmament. The great danger is a nuclear one. If Saddam Hussein achieves nuclear capability, the risk increases exponentially and the balance of power shifts radically in a deeply menacing way. As I said on this floor in earlier remarks, I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapons. He has used them on Kurdish villages and in his invasion of Iran. Evidence indicates that he is engaged in developing nuclear weapons. However, today the best authorities I could find indicate he does not yet have nuclear capability. But this is only a question of time. And we cannot let Saddam Hussein become a nuclear power. And, so, it is my intention to vote yes on the resolution before us. I do so with the hope that the United Nations will rise to the challenge and with the trust that the administration forge a coalition rather than go it alone. And I do so with the fervent prayer that it will not be necessary to place America's fighting forces or innocent civilians anywhere in harm's way.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the work of the Center for Civic Education. The center offers outstanding professional development institutes for teachers of civics and government throughout the United States. While the center is based in my home State of California, their programs are administered nationally by a network of State and congressional district coordinators. Many of you are familiar with We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, a nationally acclaimed civic education program for upper elementary, middle, and high school students. I know that a number of you have met with the high school students who participate in the We the People national finals, a three- day academic competition in which students respond to questions on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The center-sponsored professional development institutes are offered at national, regional, and State levels. These institutes are designed to instruct teachers in the content and methodology required to deliver quality education in civics and government. Institutes are usually one week long and provide rigorous content knowledge, innovative teaching techniques, and authentic assessment practices. Regional institutes provide an opportunity for teachers from neighboring states to share best practices in civic education. This past year, 27 regional and State institutes were held in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. A Juvenile Justice Institute was offered for teachers of incarcerated youth, and a civics and government institute was held for university professors of education. The center also sponsors a more intensive 3-week National Academy for teachers from across the country; the academy is held in California. Participants in the academy study major works of political theory such as Aristotle's Politics, Hobbes' Leviathan, Locke's Second Treatise, The Federalist, anti-federalist writings, and U.S. Supreme Court opinions. They also discuss relevant knowledge and creative ways to apply this experience when they return to the classroom. National institutes for elementary school teachers and teachers interested in advanced content knowledge were held for the first time this year. These institutes were conducted in Virginia and Missouri, respectively. In 2003, the center will increase the number of summer professional development institutes offered. The poor performance of students on the 1998 National Assessment for Educational Progress, NAEP, Civics Report Card can be traced to inadequate teacher preparation and insufficient quantity of instruction. We know that outstanding programs and student outcomes are directly attributed to adequately prepared teachers. Investment in professional development opportunities, such as the summer institutes and the National Academy sponsored by the Center for Civic Education, are helping to address this critical situation of teacher preparedness in the field of civics and government. I commend the center for their efforts and applaud their investment in one of our most treasured resources, the American classroom teacher.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the conference agreement on the fiscal year 2003 military construction appropriations bill. While the United States is engaged in a war on terrorism, and Congress is debating whether to give the President the authority to attack Iraq, it is timely that we are also acting to provide the military with the resources it needs to carry out its missions. The military construction appropriations bill funds scores of mission critical and quality of life infrastructure projects that are essential to support the efforts of the military. I am pleased that the Senate has moved quickly to take up this conference agreement. This bill provides nearly $10.5 billion in new budget authority, an amount only slightly below last year's funding. Given the many additional requirements being imposed on the military, particularly to meet new antiterrorism and force protections standards, additional funding would have been helpful. Still, within the funding constraints imposed on the bill, this measure does an excellent job of meeting the most critical infrastructure needs of the services. Mr. President, the projects in this bill address military readiness, quality of life, and anti-terrorism/force protection requirements. The conference attempted to address as many of the services' priorities as possible, and I believe we have done a good job in that respect, particularly in light of the fact that the House and Senate bills had very significant differences between them. The conference agreement provides nearly $4.9 billion for the active components of the military. It provides $688 million for the guard and reserve, more than double the President's budget request. Within these amounts is included $799 million for anti-terrorism/force protection enhancements for military facilities worldwide. This commitment to protect American military bases will help to ensure the security of military personnel and the families, as well as to protect the taxpayers' substantial investment in defense infrastructure. The Conference Agreement also provides $1.2 billion for barracks, and $4.2 billion for military family housing, both of which are top quality of life priorities for military personnel and their families. There are two other very important items that merit mention. The first is a $25 million initiative to accelerate the construction associated with the Army's Stryker Brigade combat teams. The Stryker Brigades will offer the military fast, light-weight, air- mobile combat power--a far advanced system when compared to the restrictions with heavy armor. An additional $25 million initiative will accelerate the Air Force's C-17 Air Mobility Program. The C-17 initiative will provide the infrastructure needed to support and enhance the ability of one of the air force's most dependable aircraft, capable of transporting both troops and equipment. The C-17 program will help address the significant shortfall in Military airlift requirements. The conference report also includes $20 million dollars for a BRAC Environmental cleanup initiative. This initiative assists Military installations that have been closed as part of the base realignment and closure effort. This additional funding, in addition to the budget requested amount, is necessary to enable the military to honor its commitments to the people and the communities that have been affected by these last four rounds of base closure. This is a start, but much more will be needed to complete the environmental clean up of BRAC sites across the nation in a reasonable period of time. This is certainly something that should be considered before the nation embarks on any future rounds of base closings. Mr. President, I thank chairman Byrd, Senator Stevens, and my ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, for their support and assistance in bringing this conference agreement to the Senate. I also thank the subcommittee staff, including Christina Evans and BG Wright of the majority staff; Sid Ashworth and Alycia Farrell of the minority staff; and Matt Miller of my staff, for their hard work on this measure. Given the difficulties that have faced the appropriations process this year, I am pleased and grateful that the military construction bill will be sent to the President prior to the Senate's adjournment. I urge the President to sign this bill without delay.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for immediate passage of the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act of 2001, as reported by the Senate Finance Committee in July. This important legislation would simply give States the option to provide health insurance coverage to pregnant women under the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Such coverage would include the full range of care, both during pregnancy and postpartum. This means that a pregnant women would have access to epidurals during the birthing process and any health-related services necessary postpartum. It also means that a pregnant women who has other health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, would be able to receive treatment for such disorders. Even life saving surgery for a pregnant woman appears to be not covered under the propose rule. Keeping the mother healthy is not only in her best interest, but clearly in the best interest of the child. Providing a mother with access to health care services could help ensure that her child will have the opportunity to be raised by a healthy mother who will hopefully live a long life. Additionally, providing the mother with access to health care services during pregnancy could also help eliminate complications during childbirth and postpartum. This could potentially cut down on health care costs. Passage of this legislation is particularly important since last week the administration issued a final proposed rule that would give States the option to provide health insurance through SCHIP to a fetus. No mention is made of providing the same coverage to the woman carrying the fetus. Woman are completely left out of the equation. It simply makes no sense to issue a regulation that provides for health insurance for a fetus but not the woman preparing to give birth. In my mind, it makes more sense to simply expand access to prenatal and postpartum care. In a country as prosperous as the United States, it is disturbing that we still rank 26th in the world in maternal mortality. This could all be avoided if we only did a better job of ensuring that all pregnant women, regardless of their income or status, had access to the full-range of health care services throughout the continuum of their pregnancy. Currently under SCHIP, only women under the age of 19 are covered for pregnancy-related services. However, what happens to a woman who turns 20 halfway through her pregnancy? A 20-year old woman would not be able to access the same services under current law but would certainly need access to prenatal and postpartum care to ensure a safe pregnancy and maximize the chances of giving birth to a healthy child. This legislation would eliminate this discrepancy. States can currently apply for a waiver to provide coverage to pregnant women. Many States have applied for such a waiver. The waiver process is often burdensome and timely. Why not just give all States the option to provide such coverage? HHS Secretary Thompson himself said on March 6, 2002, before the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee: ``And so, if you can pass the bill, we don't need the rule. Let's pass the legislation.'' I echo Secretary Thompson's sentiment. In the remaining days of Congress, let's pass this commonsense legislation. It is a good investment. It will help protect our Nation's pregnant women by providing them with access to vital health care services, and will help ensure that our Nation's children are born to healthy mothers who have been given the foundation necessary to lead a long and healthy life.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to honor my colleague, Senator Jesse Helms, and to thank him for his service to his country and the U.S. Senate. Senator Helms is retiring after 30 years in the Senate and I wish him and his wife, Dot, all the best. Senator Helms and I have not always agreed on the issues. But any disagreements we may have had has never gotten in the way of a constructive and cordial working relationship. We served together on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for several years and currently serve together on the Rules and Administration Committee. I have admired his dedication to his views, though I may strongly disagree with them, and his commitment to his constituents in North Carolina. There were certainly several occasions when I wished I had Senator Helms fighting on my side. When the battle was done, there were no hard feelings. As several of my colleagues here today have mentioned, you would be hard pressed to find a nicer man in the U.S. Senate. Whether you are a page, maintenance worker, staffer, Senator, President, Republican or Democrat, Senator Helms treats you with the same amount of respect and courtesy. That is a fitting tribute to a man who has dedicated himself to a life of public service. Again, I thank Senator Helms for his time in the Senate. This body will certainly not be the same without him.