Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment in the language in the Gramm substitute related to unaccompanied alien children. As a result, I stand in support of Title XII of the Lieberman substitute, which contains provisions based on S. 121, bipartisan legislation I introduced in Jan. 2001. My disappointment is best understood with the following example. Not long ago, the Nation's attention was focused on the plight of Elian Gonzalez and whether he should be allowed to stay in the U.S. or return to Cuba. At the same time, a young 15-year old Chinese girl 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 Guam, hoping to escape the repression she had experienced in her home country. And 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. When discovered by Federal authorities, these children are not always greeted with the special care and attention they deserve. Nearly 2,000 of them served time in juvenile jails, even though most had committed no crime. One child was even detained for 5 years. Many are handcuffed and placed in cells with other juveniles who have committed serious violent crimes. Because of their age and inexperience, children may not be able to articulate their fears or testify to their needs with the same degree of accuracy as adults. Yet despite these facts, no Federal laws and policies have been developed and implemented, thus far, to protect them. While not all children will merit asylum, providing them appointed counsel would help the INS and the courts understand the special circumstances of the child's arrival in the United States, while at the same time help the child to understand the process he or she is undergoing. In my mind this goes a long way in explaining my opposition to the Gramm substitute as it relates to unaccompanied alien children and why the Lieberman substitute is much stronger in this regard. Both pieces of legislation sought comprehensive reform in the way in which these vulnerable children are treated while under the watch of immigration authorities. The Gramm substitute, however, would strip many of the important reforms relating to unaccompanied alien children from the homeland security bill. Moreover, the provisions with respect to these children included in the Gramm substitute are nothing more than a legislative sleight of hand that appears to make reforms, but in reality would render those provisions meaningless. Clearly, most unaccompanied alien children do not pose a threat to our national security, and must be treated with all the care and decency they deserve outside the reach of this new Department. More specifically, the unaccompanied child protection provisions now contained in Title XII of the Lieberman substitute would make critical reforms to the manner in which unaccompanied alien children are treated under our immigration system. These provisions would also: preserve the functions of apprehending and adjudicating immigration claims of such children, and, when the situation warrants, of repatriating a child to his home country, within the Immigration Affairs Agency, and under the larger umbrella of homeland security. The unaccompanied alien child protection provisions would transfer the care and custody of these children to the Department of Health and Human Services. Its Office of Refugee Resettlement has real expertise in dealing with both child welfare and immigration issues. At the same time, these provisions would establish minimum standards for the care of unaccompanied alien children; provide mechanisms to ensure that unaccompanied alien children have access to counsel; permit the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to appoint guardian ad litem, if necessary, to look after the children's interests; and provide safeguards to ensure that children engaged in criminal behavior remain under the control of immigration enforcement authorities at all times. Roughly 5,000 foreign-born children under the age of 18 enter the United States each year unaccompanied by parents or other legal guardians. Some have fled political persecution, war, famine, abusive families, or other life-threatening conditions in their home countries. They often have a harder time than adults in expressing their fears or testifying in court, especially if they lack English language proficiency. Unbelievably, some of these children are subjected to such punitive actions as shackling, the use of leg manacles, and strip searches while in INS custody. Others are housed with violent juvenile offenders, or subjected to solitary confinement. Despite these horrific circumstances, the Federal response has fallen short in providing for their protection. Unaccompanied minors are among the most vulnerable of the world's asylum seekers, and they deserve our support and protection. And yet, no immigration laws or policies currently exist that effectively meet the needs of these children. Instead, children are being forced to struggle through a complex system that was designed for adults. It is important that we address this issue in this present legislation for a number of reasons. First of all, as we contemplate transferring the functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into the proposed new Department of Homeland Security, we must ensure that the new Department is not burdened with functions that do not relate to its core mission. For decades now, the INS has failed in its responsibility to care for these vulnerable children. As we transfer and reshape the INS in this legislation, it is imperative to relieve the agency of its responsibility of the care and custody of unaccompanied children. Doing so would accomplish two ends: one, it would permit the INS to focus its energies, efforts, and attention on its core missions; and two, it would transfer the care and custody of the these children to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, an office that is better suited and much more experienced in handling the complexities of the children's situations. As we turn over these responsibilities to a different agency, Congress must clearly define its expectations of the agency regarding the standards of care for these children. It would be irresponsible for us to do anything less. Quite frankly, it confounds me that, after more than a century since the first federal immigration law was enacted, our immigration system is still incapable of meeting the special needs of these children, whether those needs are medical, psychological, or legal. This is why, in an effort to change current U.S. policy toward the treatment of unaccompanied foreign-born children, I introduced the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'', S. 121. The overall purpose of this legislation is to refocus our policy away from treating these children like criminals, and to move toward a system that protects and serves their best interests. Sometimes, this means safely returning them to a parent or guardian in their home country. In other, more extraordinary cases, a child's best interest may involve a grant of asylum. As introduced, S. 121 was a reasonable, moderate, bipartisan bill with the main purpose of reforming the care of unaccompanied alien children who come to the attention of Federal authorities. As reasonable as it was, my staff and I conducted numerous meetings and phone calls with the Department of Justice and the INS, to further refine the bill's provisions. Last February, the Judiciary Subcommittee in Immigration held a hearing on the legislation. I listened to all of the ideas that they expressed, and I addressed almost all of them in the modifications that were made in the version of the legislation now included in Title XII of the Lieberman substitute. Still, after all this compromise, the administration did not bother to even mention Title XII in its statement of administration policy of this legislation. Given the moderate nature of Title XII, and given the fact that so many Republicans are cosponsors of it, I urge the Senate to maintain the provisions I have outlined today, rather than accept the evisceration of the bill's core protections that would result under the Gramm substitute. If it becomes necessary, in the coming days I intend to offer an amendment to restore these important provisions to the homeland security bill. And I will call on my colleagues to support that amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to reaffirm my overall support for a Department of Homeland Security. And I remain convinced that it is still possible to reach a consensus on this critical issue, and that we must strive to do so before the end of this session. However, after giving this matter a great deal of thought, I must stand in opposition to the provisions in the Gramm-Miller bill that would strip many of the protections afforded to employees of the new Department. As it stands, the bill's language would take away rights from some 200,000 Federal employees, rights that have been available for decades to most of the Federal workforce. None of us dispute that any organization, particularly one entrusted with such a vital mission as homeland security, can function properly only if its managers have the authority both to offer incentives to talented employees and to fire negligent or ineffective employees. And despite a great deal of rhetoric to the contrary, such flexibility already exists under the current labor provisions that govern the Federal workforce. This flexibility was granted under the terms of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, allowing managers to: performance standards, and have the power to fire employees for performance failures as long as there is at least some plausible evidence. In light of these facts, it is downright wrong to suggest that the Government cannot fire employees who, say, are drunk on the job or who commit crimes. In fact, under current law, managers can remove such employees from their jobs immediately, while the employees' appeal can be settled definitively within 30 days. Under current law, managers also have wide latitude in transferring, suspending, and reassigning employees, as well as in appointing candidates from outside the federal government to fill open positions. On both sides of the aisle, there is virtual unanimity that any homeland security legislation must include a package of additional flexibilities regarding hiring, training, separation, and retirement. These additional flexibilities are in the Lieberman substitute. And yet, the President has threatened to veto the Lieberman substitute, unless the Senate agrees to the labor provisions of the Gramm-Miller substitute. Apparently, the President is willing to scrap crucial legislation to protect our country from terrorism if he is not given open-ended authority to abolish or limit federal employee rights and protections. In my view, this threat is unnecessary, unwarranted, and highly unproductive. And now the President has rejected a perfectly sound bipartisan compromise proposed by Senators Nelson, Breaux, and Chafee. This compromise, which I support, provides what he wants, management flexibility authority, and what the Federal Government requires, safeguards to ensure that he cannot abuse that power. This amendment provides the President broad leeway to change the civil service rules governing hiring, promotions, dismissals, performance appraisals, classifications, and pay rates for Homeland Security Department employees. At the same time, Federal employee unions could object. If the two sides could not agree on the changes, then the Federal Services Impasses Panel, a board of seven presidential appointees, would arbitrate. This amendment allows the President to revoke an employee's rights to collectively bargain and to form unions, if that employee's duties materially change and these duties directly relate to intelligence, counter-intelligence, or investigations relating to terrorism. In threatening to veto this compromise, the administration has tried to frame the debate in terms of national security. For instance, the President's spokesman recently said that the compromise bill would prevent the president ``from making decisions based on national security, no matter how urgent a crisis we find ourselves in.'' I find it disturbing that the administration has suggested that putting any restriction on the President's authority to limit or abolish federal employee rights and protections somehow jeopardizes our national security. The way I see it, the administration is getting it exactly backwards. The administration's attempt to give the executive branch total authority to rewrite the civil service system without consulting anyone would not help protect our country. Indeed, it would leave it more vulnerable. At a time of such massive restructuring of the federal government, it is absolutely critical that we maintain as much continuity as possible. Yet the Gramm-Miller substitute's open-ended language would allow the President to eliminate, by fiat, many important workers' rights. This would be a huge blow to the morale and productivity of many thousands of Federal employees, and would risk the loss of many highly qualified individuals to the private sector. There is also a large percentage of workers who, if push comes to shove, can option for early retirement. This is no time for the federal government to suffer a so-called ``brain drain,'' and be forced to train novices from scratch. In the middle of our war on terrorism, the last thing we want to do is lose experienced employees on the front lines of this war. We are talking about employees at the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Border Patrol, the Federal Aviation Authority, and other agencies. We are talking about men and women who are working around the clock to prevent another terrorist attack and to protect our citizens. I for one do not see any inherent clash between collective bargaining rights and homeland security. For example, Department of Defense civilians with top secret clearances are long-standing union members whose membership has not compromised our national security. And many of the heroes of September 11 were unionized. The New York City firefighters who ran up the Twin Towers did not see any conflict between worker rights and emergency response. And let's not forget that Federal employees do not have the right to strike. Why haven't supporters of the President's proposal not been able to identify one instance of a labor dispute which contributed to a breakdown in our national security? I have heard from many Federal employees in California who would be affected by this legislation. I would like to share with you the words of just one. Joseph Dassaro is a Senior Border Patrol Agent assigned to the San Diego Sector of our southern border. He has been an agent for ten years, and is President of the San Diego Chapter of the National Border Patrol Council. In his words: ``The loss of collective bargaining rights and civil service protections would force me to leave the Border Patrol. Simply put, without the union and the Civil Service Reform Act . . .'' ``I have no faith in the ability of the agency, or any subsequently created agency, to provide working conditions in which I can operate in the best interests of this nation. Additionally, based on the vast input I have received from the many agents I represent, I can assure you that [if the President's proposal is enacted], Border Patrol attrition rates would more than double . . . ``At record levels, agents are applying for local police positions in Southern California. Recently, the San Diego County Sheriffs [Department] interviewed over twelve agents from one Border Patrol station. Not only do these agencies offer better pay, incentives, and working conditions, they also offer an environment which rewards merit and seniority.'' Mr. Dassaro, along with the hundreds of thousands of other Federal employees, has been working day in and day out to keep our country secure. I do not know why the administration wants to take fundamental rights and protections away from these patriotic Americans. We should not be attacking job security under the guise of national security. This debate on homeland security should not be an exercise in scoring political points at the expense of labor protections for Federal employees, protections that are already in place at virtually every other Federal agency and which have functioned smoothly for many years. Which is why I ask my colleagues to vote against the anti-union provisions in Gramm-Miller, while urging the Bush Administration to reconsider the compromise offered by Senators Nelson, Breaux and Chafee.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my distinguished colleague and friend from Arizona. I must say I differ with him on this bill because I am very much in support of this bill. In particular, I commend both Senators Leahy and Hatch for bringing this first Department of Justice authorization report to the Senate floor in 20 years. I very much hope the Senate is going to adopt the report. Before I go into saying what this bill does with respect to Federal judgeships, I want to comment that this bill does deal with homeland security, particularly border security. This bill specifically authorizes more than $4 billion for the administration and enforcement of laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and alien registration. More than $3.2 billion of this amount will be allotted to the National Border Patrol. That is something for which both Senator Kyl and I have worked on our subcommittee for a substantial period of time, and I am very pleased to see this authorization. It deals with domestic preparedness. For example, the Conference Report authorizes funding for the Centers for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Nevada, Vermont, and Pennsylvania. It adds additional uses for grants for the Office of Domestic Preparedness to support State and local law enforcement agencies. This bill also has FBI reform. It includes provisions from the Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act to codify the authority of the Department of Justice inspector general to investigate allegations of misconduct by FBI employees. The conference report provides special danger pay allowances to FBI agents in hazardous duty locations outside of the United States, something we should very much want to speed through at this time. It has the Law Enforcement Tribute Act. It has the Feinstein- Sessions-Carnahan-Durbin, James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act, which imposes criminal penalties on individuals who use body armor in the commission of crimes of violence or drug trafficking crimes. This bill specifically originated as a product of the work of Lee Guelff, whose brother, James Guelff, was a police officer at San Francisco's northern station. Officer Guelff responded to a sniper incident at the corner of Franklin and Pine Streets and encountered an individual completely clad in Kevlar--Kevlar helmet, Kevlar vest, Kevlar pants, the whole thing--with about 1,100 rounds of ammunition. Officer Guelff only had his police revolver, which he emptied to no effect against his Kevlar protected assailant, who shot the officer in the head and killed him. It took 150 police officers to equal the firepower of this one man with semiautomatic weapons clad in Kevlar standing in the intersection. This is a very important bill. We have worked for 6 years. To Lee Guelff, congratulations. This bill authorizes a separate and independent Violence Against Women Office within the Department of Justice similar to S. 570 introduced by Senator Biden with 22 cosponsors. It is a very important step for those who would like to see this separate office set up. The bill has crime-free rural States grants. It creates and authorizes $30 million for the crime-free rural States program to make grants to rural States to help local communities prevent and reduce crime, violence, and substance abuse. For many of us, this bill is important because it restores a vital program, the SCAAP program, that the President cut out. SCAAP is an acronym for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Under law, the Federal Government is responsible for the borders. If we do not protect the borders, people come to our country illegally. Some commit crimes, they are convicted, they do time in jails, but the local jurisdictions pay for that time in jail in State prison and in jails. SCAAP is the only program that reimburses the States for their cost of incarcerating illegal aliens. It is a very important program. Senator Kyl and the people of Arizona support it. I support it. I believe every member of the Judiciary Committee supports it. I believe the Presiding Officer supports it. That authorization is in this bill. Regarding drug abuse, this bill includes several provisions from the Hatch-Leahy-Biden-Feinstein Drug Abuse Education Prevention and Treatment Act that will move Federal antidrug policy toward a more balanced approach that includes added attention to prevention and treatment. The provisions in this bill, for example, authorize funding for drug courts. We know drug courts work in prevention of narcotic use. The bill authorizes $172 million over the next 3 fiscal years to support State and local adult and juvenile drug courts. These courts provide treatment as an alternative to jail for nonviolent offenders who stay off drugs. The statistics of recidivism show this approach works. There are provisions with respect to drug-free prisons. The bill authorizes the use of Federal funds for jail-based substance abuse programs, for reentry programs, for DEA, and police training. It authorizes funding for the drug enforcement agency police training in South and Central Asia to reduce the supply of drugs entering the United States. The bill has a myriad of proposals with respect to protecting intellectual property: The Madrid Protocol, distance learning, Patent and Trademark Office authorization and modernization, and enhanced enforcement of intellectual property laws. Most importantly, this bill authorizes a number of new judgeships. It authorizes five new permanent judgeships in the southern district of California at San Diego, as well as two in the western district of Texas. The western district of North Carolina receives one. It converts four temporary judgeships to permanent judgeships: One in the central district of Illinois, the northern district of New York, the eastern district of Virginia. And it creates seven new temporary judgeships, one in each of the northern districts of Alabama, Arizona, central district of California, southern district of Florida, district of New Mexico, western district of North Carolina, eastern district of Texas. It extends the temporary judgeship in the northern district of Ohio for 5 years. I have heard Members of this body implore the Judiciary Committee about the need for additional judgeships. The Southern District court in San Diego, for example, has the heaviest caseload in the nation. This court has operated in a state of emergency since September, 2000. The Southern District handles complex litigation as well as major drug cases that emanate from the closeness of San Diego to the Mexican border. The district is relying on temporary and senior judges. The bench has been close to real catastrophe. This bill finally brings relief. This bill improves civil justice; has motor vehicle franchise fairness; the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act; and the Antitrust Technical Corrections Act. There are a number of things in this bill to improve immigration procedures: The J-1 visa program, the H-1B visas, help to children, and more. I conclude by noting that this bill is not unrelated to our present place in time. It is not unrelated to the need to protect our borders, to seeing that our nation has adequate border security, to seeing that FBI agents have hazardous duty pay, and to seeing that our visa program is improved. The bill provides authorization for the payment to State and local jurisdictions for the incarceration of illegal immigrants and for the addition of additional judgeships. It is a very important bill. Again, I particularly thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member. Without them, this bill would not be on the floor today. It is a very important bill. I urge an ``aye'' vote. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Twenty minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, for her excellent remarks, and those Senators from New Jersey and New York who joined her. She has made a very impassioned message. It is a correct message. I hope people listen. I also am deeply saddened by recent comments made by the President and Vice President which imply that Democrats are not protective of our Nation's security. Nothing is further from the truth. There is no shortage of courage and bravery and patriotism on this side of the aisle. We, too, have our heroes who prove that: Senator Max Cleland, Senator Daniel Inouye, former Senator Bob Kerrey, and Senator John Kerry, people who fought with bravery and distinction in major conflicts this Nation has had. Even to imply the Democrats are not interested in the security of the American people is not only wrong, but in the present pre-election period I believe it is also base. Last night, it was reported the Vice President went so far as to state that American security would be enhanced if a certain GOP candidate was elected to the House of Representatives. This very statement, carried by major newspapers, jaundiced any fair discussion in this pre-election period. One might ask why? The reason is both the President and the Vice President have an extraordinary bully pulpit with a very long reach. It makes up about 95 percent of everything that reaches the American public; the remaining 5 percent is scattered among whoever is able to receive it. If this debate is politicized in the heat of an election and the decision is made for the wrong reasons--out of fear; if we do not carry out the public trust that is invested in us and make the decision for the right reasons, then we betray our trust. And no election is worth doing that. I share the concern of the majority leader, and I hope it is not too late to end this politicization. But there is only one way. Shortly, we in Congress will begin debate on whether to authorize the President the authority to use force against Iraq. It is, in effect, a declaration of war. The President has sent a draft resolution. He made his case before the United Nations. Today he seeks the support of the international community. Now it is our job, our constitutional duty, to debate this resolution. But we must do so in an atmosphere that is true. The decision to go to war is perhaps the most grave and significant decision any nation makes. It is a decision that must be made on its own merits, with a timetable determined by the cause and the case and not based on political considerations and upcoming elections. I believe that deeply. A declaration of war against Iraq is the most serious decision many Members will ever make as Senators. It is a life or death decision for the American men and women we put into harm's way, for the innocent Iraqi people who will be killed, for the repercussions it will have throughout the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the Arab world, and throughout our own country and the rest of the world. Congress must not rush to judgment before it has had ample opportunity to answer the many questions that still remain regarding why a war, a preemptive war, should be fought at this time against Iraq. For example, what is the immediate threat to American security to justify an attack on another sovereign nation? How would such a war be conducted? How would we respond to Iraq's use of chemical or biological weapons, to an attack on Israel, or to a ricochet of terrorist incidents in our country and around the world? And what are our responsibilities for postwar stability once Saddam Hussein is ousted? How do we prevent civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias? No one questions that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, or the potential of Iraq acquiring the nuclear capability within the next 5 to 7 years is a possibility. We believe it is. There is reason to believe that Saddam Hussein has squirreled away biological and chemical weapons. But they are most likely close to civilians: in tunnels, under mosques, around schools and hospitals, and inside palaces or in mobile vehicles. This is not sufficient reason to preemptively attack another sovereign nation--for the first time in this Nation's history--without first being provoked by an attack against our homeland, our people, or our interests. It is not sufficient reason to put our service men and women in harm's way when there are real, viable options short of war left on the table. There is no question this country should take steps to disarm Iraq. Saddam Hussein, with chemical and biological weapons, represents a real threat to his own people, to the Middle East region, and to the international security. The question is, Is use of force the first option or the last option? In my view, it should be the last. In my view, working with the international community, doing all we can to disarm Iraq before jumping to military force, remains an option. If Saddam Hussein balks at inspectors, if he starts playing games, if he continues to thwart the will of the international community, then the use of force by the United States has a moral imprimatur and is the only remaining viable answer. There is no question that Iraq is in direct violation of international law, numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, and that he poses a threat in the region. Nobody debates that. But there is no persuasive evidence that Iraq is prepared to unleash its biological or chemical weapons today. Although he used them against the Kurds in 1987 and 1988, and against Iran in their decade-long war, he has not used them in over 10 years, and he knows what will happen to him if he does. He may be homicidal but he is not suicidal. Likewise, there is no persuasive evidence that he possesses nuclear weapons today. He may be trying to gain these weapons, but he remains years away. So instead of rushing to war, I believe we should proceed in a calm, methodical, and nonpolitical manner. The United States should work through the United Nations Security Council--as the President himself suggested in a September 12 speech to the United Nations and as Secretary of State Colin Powell is now trying to do to obtain full and unconditional access for arms inspectors, and hopefully accompanied by a United Nations military force. We should seek the complete destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. This approach should be our first option, not window dressing or an option to be dismissed out-of- hand. And we should do this not for idealistic reasons but because it is in our national security interests to do so. Indeed, the benefit of pursuing a multilateral approach was seen clearly when Saudi Arabia suggested that, if the United States were working through the United Nations, it would grant U.S. forces access to its bases. Action against Iraq becomes much more complicated, from a military perspective, if there are no landing or flyover rights in other Arab countries; and managing the aftermath becomes much more difficult if we find the entire Arab world against us. So I believe that if the United States fails in its efforts to compel Iraqi compliance with a United Nations inspection, verification, and destruction regime--either because other countries threaten a veto in the Security Council or the United Nations is unable to muster the muscle and will to enforce its own resolutions--then the United States, with or without willing partners in the international community, must be prepared to go it alone. But we must be clear. If we go to war, it should be to force Iraq to disarm. This time, too, it is critical that the United States stays the course on the war on terror. In every book you read on Osama bin Laden, you see that he believed that we would never stay the course in a war against him. We would hit a camp once and then disappear. As happened before, we would go to Somalia, get into trouble in Mogadishu, and we would turn tail and run. Bin Laden bet on that. He cannot be right about that. We have much to do to win this war. Many of those who perpetrated the September 11 terrorist attacks remain at large, including two-thirds of the al-Qaida leadership; the Taliban and its leader, Mullah Omar; not to mention thousands of terrorists sympathetic to al-Qaida worldwide, including in our own country. Afghanistan remains a fragile and unstable country. The United States must continue our efforts to rebuild this country. We cannot repeat what was done to it since 1979. We must continue our efforts to rebuild Afghanistan, the Afghan economy, to assure that the Taliban and al- Qaida do not return to power there--because they will if they can. We must protect and stabilize the Government of Hamid Karzai. And any effort in Iraq must not detract from our war on terror. The President has rightly pointed out that the war on terror will be a long and hard-fought battle, and it is not just against al-Qaida. It is Hezbollah, which equals al-Qaida in its reach, in its viciousness, in its malevolence, and its evil. We must not take our eye off this ball. The President must come forward to explain not only how we fight this two-front war without allowing one front to jeopardize our interests in the other, but also what we would do in the event of a major strike against Israel. I have come to this floor before and indicated that there is ample evidence that rockets are being shipped out of Iran, through Syria and into southern Lebanon--Katyusha rockets with extended range anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000, to hit Israel's industrial zone north of Haifa, should we attack Iraq. What do we do then? What is our commitment, and what will the other Arab States do? I think we ought to know this. I think as prudent leaders, as part of a debate in the greatest deliberative body in the world, we ought to know these things before going into it, so there are no surprises. Finally, it is critical that if and as we consider any use of force against Iraq that we have a clear understanding of the aftermath. Who would do the rebuilding? Who would pay for it? Who would run any new government? And could that government provide security? Could it prevent a bigger and more brutal battle between the Sunni and the Shia. That is not a question to overlook. Read the history on Iraq. You will see the brutality and the viciousness, the attack of one tribe on the other that has characterized Iraqi history from the time of ancient Mesopotamia. There are a lot of grievances out there to be settled, big grievances between the Shia majority and the ruling Sunni Baath party minority. As General Shalikashvili made clear in his recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, planning for a post-conflict situation, winning the peace, is every bit as important as planning for the conflict itself. And until the planning for post-war Iraq is in place--and it is not now--we should not rush to initiate combat. In fact, every general with whom I have talked--and I have talked with several--has urged caution. Every general with whom I have talked, privately, believes this war could end up being much more difficult than some expect it to be. So to simply rush ahead and authorize the President to use force now, before these questions are answered, and without an imminent threat-- save what some hope to gain from this issue in the elections--would be a grave error. Congress must debate these issues fully, thoroughly, on a schedule, and with a timetable driven only by the merits of the issues. We must then move forward to pass a resolution tailored to the specific circumstances and giving the President the proper authority he needs to safeguard U.S. national interests. So much is at stake here. American lives are at stake. We do not know how many, but I know one thing: It is not going to be like the gulf war. This war will be in cities. This will be street to street and house to house. We might send in the B-2s, the B-52s and the 117s, and they might drop huge numbers of laser-guided missiles and precision bombs. We will kill a lot of people. And then do we risk what may happen with the chemical and biologicals squirreled away? Do they go up in those attacks? Or are they released over innocent people? I have never heard one person discuss this, and it is time that we do so. We are not a mercenary nation. This is not our heart. It is not our soul. And we have never engaged in a preemptive attack on another sovereign nation. It may well be that untold numbers of lives are at stake elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, in the Middle East, and yes, right here in the USA. Matters of war and peace, of life and death, must not be held in the grip of shortsighted, partisan rancor. I for one refuse to make them so. I respectfully suggest the Administration do the same. The stakes are simply too high. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as chair of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, I have the opportunity and responsibility to take a close look at our military's construction needs throughout the world. During our August recess, I chose to take a closer look at an initiative recently implemented by the Army in Europe called ``Efficient Basing''. This initiative is a two part process that will streamline the Army's infrastructure needs in Germany and in Italy. The plan will direct much needed funds to consolidate U.S. bases throughout Germany, and better position an airborne battalion south of the Alps in Vicenza, Italy to more quickly respond to the possibility of crisis in the Transcaucasus, the Balkans, the Middle East and Africa. Although the costs for this initiative could total nearly $1 billion when complete, there is little doubt that it will both dramatically reduce the long term costs of basing our forces in Western Europe and provide better strategic positioning for regional conflicts and the global war on terrorism. This aptly named ``Efficient Basing'' initiative is being guided by the U.S. Army's European Commander in Chief, Gen. Montgomery Meigs. General Meigs invited me to Europe to take a closer look at the work in progress and allow him the opportunity to justify the costs associated with the program. As a result, I went to Camp Ederle, in Vicenza, Italy, and was able to see first hand the real efficiency of this tremendously large task and recognize the actual savings to be gained. I would like to take a few minutes to recognize the degree of dedication and service to our country that is often overlooked. Whether fighting a war, or carrying out the daily administrative tasks necessary to provide protection for America at home and abroad, our military commanders and the soldiers within their command display a level of dedication, efficiency, and selflessness that is awe inspiring. We ask a lot of our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. And, without question, they are up to the task, whatever it might be. Let me give just a couple of examples: In his nearly 35 years of military service, General Meigs and his wife, Mary-Ann have moved their family 24 times. That's not just soldier dedication, that's family dedication--all for the sake of our freedom. This sacrifice is recognized throughout the world, not only by Americans, but by our allies and partners as well. In the wake of September 11, a strangely surprising and caring act took place on the part of our Italian allies. In less than 24 hours, the Carabinieri--Italian police--in a show of force protection, came out in large numbers to surround our Vicenza base, Camp Ederle. The base didn't solicit their presence. It was given voluntarily. Acts like this do not just happen--they take time and the creation of a rapport built on admiration and years of interaction with our commanders and soldiers. The actions of the Carabinieri was, in part, a response to a lasting friendship--a friendship forged by men like MG Robert Wagner, the Southern European Task Force, SETAF, Commander. General Wagner, a shining example for all to follow, is one hundred percent engaged with the leaders of the community--the mayor, the director of the Carabinieri, and businesses leaders throughout northern Italy. The relationships and mutual admiration did not just happen by virtue of his position. It was developed over time, by him and by his predecessors, who hosted dinners and got to know these leaders and their needs, as well as expressing his concerns for our soldiers and the community in which they live and work. The relationship between General Wagner and the community is priceless, but the care and concern he expresses for his soldiers is even more evident. I was pleasantly amazed by the spontaneously unsolicited comments by persons like the local base librarian, who takes pride in his facilities and the services that he is able to provide to some 750 daily visitors. The same type of pride was exhibited by the director of the commissary, who manages a clean, well stocked facility and therefore plays a critical role in the morale and welfare of those who defend us. A long time concern of mine has been the high operational tempo, or more simply put, the rate at which our service members are deployed away from their home base, whether for training, or deployed in reaction to a crisis. In Vicenza, Italy, I met an impressive young man--a Californian--1SG Noel Fernando. First Sergeant Fernando, a native of Salinas, California, talked to me about his highly trained Airborne unit's operational tempo. Sergeant Fernando, a hard worker who achieved his very high enlisted rank at an early age, assured me that more organized planning and early notification to family members regarding deployment schedules has reduced the trauma experienced by younger soldiers and their loved ones. They are now better able to anticipate deployments and plan accordingly. Another distinguished member of our military forces is Gen. Joe Ralston. General Ralston is the Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe. As Commander in Chief of U.S. European Command, he is the senior U.S. military officer and commander of a unified combatant command with an area of responsibility that includes 89 nations in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. General Ralston will be retiring soon, and just like many service members before, he and his family have sacrificed much of their lives for our freedom. I was pleased to have been escorted by General Ralston to the sites of several upcoming military construction projects in the Mons, Belgium area. The first is a barracks complex that will accommodate soldiers at the ``one-plus-one'' housing standard. Another project will add a classroom to the SHAPE, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, elementary school. While there, I had an opportunity to visit this site and visit with the students and teachers. I am pleased to report that the administrators of this and other military schools in Europe have been able to reduce the student to teacher ratio significantly, thus offering a quality education for our military dependents. In summary, I would like to emphasize the important role that our officers, enlisted members, and their families play in creating good will around the world for the people of America. As I have mentioned previously, all of these people dedicate their lives, and to a certain degree their personal freedom, to ensure our nation's remains free. These military service members and their families deserve quality facilities wherever they might be stationed. This is why, I feel honored to sit as chair of the Appropriations Military Construction Subcommittee, because it allows me to make a difference in the living and working conditions for our troops who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on our nation's behalf. I am dedicated to providing first class facilities for them both at home and abroad. Lastly, it is with great pride that I commend those service members like General Ralston, General Meigs, General Wagner and First Sergeant Fernando, who have for decades sought to ensure a better quality of life for our fighting force.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to address a forest issue, but since Senator Wyden and I have worked closely on this, I ask unanimous consent that his remarks directly follow mine.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as this Nation wages our war against terrorism, I rise today in support of the Lieberman substitute amendment to H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act. We must take this critical step now, in a way that protects both our liberties and our lives. I commend my colleague, Senator Lieberman, and the entire Committee on Government Affairs for drafting such meaningful and comprehensive legislation. The Government Affairs Committee reported the bill on a strong bipartisan vote of 12 to 5--a clear sign of substantial support. It is unfortunate that the President has threatened to veto this legislation. It fills me with a deep sense of sadness that it took the tragedy of 1 year ago to bring us this far. The deaths of nearly 3,000 people showed us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our Government was ill- prepared to tackle the multifaceted threat of terrorism. We would be doing a great disservice to the memory of those that perished on September 11--and to the citizens this new department will be sworn to protect--if we fail to adopt a more effective system to combat terror. As a member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, I have been immersed in the debate on homeland security for a long time now. I believe that we need to reorganize agencies to better fight the war on terror and I think that the creation of a Department of Homeland Security is a good first step. This belief grew largely out of extensive hearings. In the 107th Congress alone, the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee has held 16 hearings with 79 witnesses on counterterrorism. Other subcommittee hearings covered narcoterrorism, seaport security, the National Guard, cyberterrorism, critical infrastructure, weapons of mass destruction, bioterrorism, biometric identifiers, and identity theft. Above all, what stood out at these hearings was the lack of coordination among specific agencies involved in homeland security, bolstering the need for fundamental reorganization of our counter- terrorism effort. For example, we dealt with the problems at the National Infrastructure Protection Center, NIPC, the chief body for coordinating the Federal response to cyber-terrorism attacks. The hearing revealed that NIPC had strong investigative capabilities but was weak in analysis, warning and outreach. Now, under the homeland security legislation, NIPC's investigative responsibilities will remain at the FBI but the other functions will be transferred to the Homeland Security Department. These overall shortcomings in counterterrorism led me to introduce appropriate legislation. Following the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole, Senator Kyl and I introduced the Counterterrorism Act of 2000. This legislation would have implemented a number of recommendations made by the congressionally-mandated National Commission on Terrorism. The Senate passed this Counterterrorism Act unanimously, before the end of the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, the House did not act on the bill before it adjourned. But we are in a dramatically different world now--and we are facing an enemy capable of any striking out anytime, anywhere, and by a wide variety of methods. The need for a Department of Homeland Security could not be greater. More important than getting it done, however, is getting it done right. There are four key areas that I would like to address: the overall structure of the new department, the critical role of immigration to homeland security and the future of the INS, my concerns about intelligence sharing, the need for strong oversight over the money we spend fighting terrorism, and the importance of protecting our civil servants. The task before us is enormous--the largest restructuring of the federal government in half a century. It come as no surprise that this last reshuffling was in response to a new and unexpected war--the cold war. The Department of Defense, the CIA and the National Security Council were created by the National Security Act of 1947. Begun in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the restructuring took years of work and compromise between the executive and legislative branches. To think we could undertake a similar operation in a matter of days or weeks is simply not practical. We are talking about some 200,000 federal jobs, from over 20 agencies, to be shuffled around. Add to this a large chunk of the federal budget--at least $40 billion, not counting transition costs. As we begin this massive reorganization, it is critical to do everything we can to stay focused and organized in the fight against terrorism. Nothing could be worse than if this reorganization effort distracted from the real work of the good people in these agencies--people who are continuing the difficult, complex, and ongoing fight to prevent future acts of terrorism. We must also be sure to strike an appropriate balance regarding which agencies to move and why. Nowhere is this more critical, in my mind, than with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. One of the most alarming facts about September 11 is how the terrorists used our visa system to enter the United States with impunity. They lingered here, undetected and under the radar, while some were even reissued visas after the attacks. Because of this--and because I have long believed our borders to be sieves--last year I introduced the Border Security and Visa Reform Entry Act, with Senators Kyl, Kennedy and Brownback. Now that this legislation is law, the Congress must work closely with the administration to ensure that its provisions are properly and timely implemented. The main thrust of this legislation was to prevent terrorists from entering the United States through gaping loopholes in our immigration and visa system. Yet there is still much more to do, because the future of the Immigration and Naturalization Service is critical to our homeland security efforts. To do this means ensuring that the immigration agency has the sufficient personnel and resources to get the job done. Without doubt, this is a daunting task. When the President first released his proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security, I had major concerns about transferring all immigration functions into a department made up of more than 25 different agencies and burdened with 120-plus different missions. But if such a transfer is to take place, the Lieberman substitute would implement it in the best possible way. The President's proposal contained a mere two and a half pages of legislative language abolishing the INS and permitting the administration to divide the immigration system. The White House would divide the INS with little direction as to how the agency would meet its new homeland security mission, and with little input from Congress. It would also establish a weak executive to oversee the immigration functions. Finally, the administration's proposed new structure fails to adequately respond to intelligence failures at the hands of our front- line agencies. For example, the General Accounting Office and the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General has repeatedly criticized the INS for its failure to adequately train its officers to properly analyze intelligence information it collects from the field and from other agencies. Yet the administration's bill fails to create a mechanism by which Federal authorities can share critical information with INS more quickly, so that the agency's officers and adjudicators can make the right decisions about whom to admit and whom to deny entry into the United States. The Lieberman substitute, on the other hand, would establish two separate enforcement and service bureaus with clear lines of authority. This would ensure that: the agency's missions are straight-forward, that they are properly managed and staffed, and that policies handed down from the Director or the deputy directors of the two bureaus are implemented and followed in the field offices. The Lieberman substitute would also elevate the stature of the new immigration agency executive--the Under Secretary for Immigration Affairs--and put into place a strong agency executive. Right now, the Commissioner's office is too low in the Justice Department hierarchy to hold much weight with other federal agencies. It has little meaningful authority over the District Directors, who wield enormous power, but are difficult to hold accountable. This would not necessarily change under the administration's proposal. The Lieberman substitute would also separate the enforcement and service functions of the INS, but place them within the same Directorate. This would allow both bureaus to coordinate such functions as investigating visa fraud, and conducting background checks of applicants for visas, naturalization, other immigration benefits, and entry. I am particularly pleased that the Lieberman substitute contains the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act, bipartisan legislation I introduced in January 2001. I also believe that this illustrates how important it is, given this enormous restructuring, that we be very careful not to lump every role of every agency under the umbrella of homeland security. Unaccompanied children represent the most vulnerable segment of the immigrant population. Clearly, most unaccompanied alien children do not pose a threat to our national security, and must be treated with all the care and decency they deserve, outside the reach of this new department. More specifically, this measure, comprising Title XII of the Lieberman substitute, would make critical reforms to the manner in which unaccompanied alien children are treated under our immigration system. It would also preserve the functions of apprehending and adjudicating immigration claims of such children and repatriating a child to his home country when the situation warrants within the Immigration Affairs Agency, under the larger umbrella of homeland security. The unaccompanied alien child protection provisions would transfer the care and custody of these children to the Department of Health and Human Services. Its Office of Refugee Resettlement office has real expertise in dealing with both child welfare and immigration issues. These provisions would also establish minimum standards for the care of unaccompanied alien children; provide mechanisms to ensure that unaccompanied alien children have access to counsel, and have a guardian ad litem appointed to look after their interests; and provide safeguards to ensure that children engaged in criminal behavior remain under the control of immigration enforcement authorities at all times. Roughly 5,000 foreign-born children under the age of 18 enter the United States each year unaccompanied by parents or other legal guardians. Some have fled political persecution, war, famine, abusive families, or other life-threatening conditions in their home countries. They often have a harder time than adults in expressing their fears or testifying in court, especially given their lack of English language proficiency. Despite these circumstances, the Federal response has fallen short in providing for their protection. No immigration laws or policies currently exist to effectively meet the needs of these children. Instead, children are being force to struggle through a complex system that was designed for adults. The Immigration and Naturalization Service detains some 35 percent of these children in juvenile jails. There they are subject to strip searches, shackles and handcuffs. Even worse, their experiences of detention and isolation are often as traumatic as the persecution they fled in their home countries. These problems are emblematic of our immigration system. It is managed by a bureaucracy ill equipped to help the thousands of unaccompanied children in need of special protection. This is why I urge my colleagues to support these important measures. These changes would guarantee that the proposed Department of Homeland Security is not burdened with functions that do not relate to its core mission. Second, it would ensure that the INS dedicate itself to its central functions and not suffer mission overload. And finally, the move would ensure that the interests of unaccompanied alien children are protected. The future of the INS highlights two distinct questions, which relate to the larger issue of homeland security. First, how we protect innocent civilians, immigrants and citizens alike, while uprooting terrorists and preventing terrorist attack, and second, how we organize such a large department in a way that avoids duplication and inefficiency. With respect to this last question, the Lieberman bill is a marked improvement from the present situation, where more than 100 Federal agencies across the government play some role within homeland security, not to mention all 50 states and literally thousands of localities. On one level, success depends on how the federal merges with State and local government--the so-called ``first responders''--and from the cooperation of citizens. This is true on a variety of issues, from preventing possible attacks, through shared intelligence, to reacting to when an attack strikes, and also how any emergency or rescue operations are able to respond. Success also depends on the need to improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence on homeland security. To do this right, we must not side-step possible failures within the intelligence community that occurred before the attacks of September 11. Understanding past problems is key to future successes. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes twice, especially mistakes of such consequence. Earlier this year, FBI Agent Coleen Rowley's startling testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was a real wake-up call. Her accounts of the many layers of bureaucracy at the FBI, and the many frustrations faced in reaching superiors to authorize investigations, point to a critical need to revamp the existing structure of key agencies outside the Homeland Security Department--a task as complicated as it is sensitive. It has been suggested that this new Department of Homeland Security is destined to failure if it cannot gain access to all relevant raw intelligence and law enforcement data. I for one agree with such a scenario. We can't be fixing major kinks in the system a few years down the road, in the wake of another intelligence failure and another nightmarish attack. We've got to get it right, as best as possible, the first time around. This will require answers to some tough questions. For starters: What kind of intelligence would the new department get? And what recourse will it have if it does not get the information it needs? Both of these have yet to be adequately answered. I want to emphasize a point that many commentators have overlooked: billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake in this debate over homeland security. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have studied what we spend on combating terrorism and will spend in the near future--are the numbers are staggering. We must ensure that this money is spent properly and not wasted. According to the preliminary results of a General Accounting Office investigation of the terrorism budget requested by me, Senators Kyl, Graham, and Shelby, Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Conyers, the combating terrorism budget increased 276 percent in just 1 year--and is going to increase even more. Consider the following figures: a $40 billion supplemental appropriation bill was passed shortly after September 11 last year; the August 2002 emergency supplemental amounts to $29 billion; and the fiscal year 2003 budget request is $45 billion. The GAO also found that counterterrorism missions are spread over multiple agencies and appropriations, but no real cross-agency terrorism budget exists. Neither the President nor Congress has a clear idea of how much we are spending to fight terrorism. The GAO recommends that extensive interagency coordination and oversight is needed not just to determine how much we are spending to fight terrorism but to figure out where our priorities are. In addition, the GAO found a number of areas of potential overlap-- areas where money seems to be wasted through duplication of efforts. These areas cut across every agency and include law enforcement, grant programs for State and local government, weapons of mass destruction training, critical infrastructure protection, research and development to combat terrorism, and terrorist-related medical research. The creation of a new Homeland Security Department alone will do nothing to solve these problems. Simply moving agencies into a new organization is insufficient to minimize duplication and waste. We need to be sure that the President, his Homeland Security Adviser, and the Secretary of the new department work with Congress to assist agencies in consolidating terrorism programs, eliminating duplicate efforts, and coordinating complimentary agency functions. The issue of how best to ensure oversight over funds to combat terrorism does not stand in the way of our getting this legislation passed. The same cannot be said for the labor provisions. As we know, these provisions remain the major barrier between the White House and Congress. I do not see any inherent clash between collective bargaining rights for Federal employees and homeland security. And I support civil service protections at the new Department of Homeland Security. I support management flexibility, and I think that the Lieberman bill provides it. Under the bill, the new Secretary will have broad powers to hire and fire whom he wants. The bill also includes a number of new flexibilities in recruitment, hiring, training, and retirement. The Lieberman bill gives the administration flexibility in these areas. While the collective bargaining rights of federal employees in the new department will be grandfathered in, the President will be free to strip them of their collective bargaining rights if the job of those employees changes. To me, I could not imagine a more ill-timed attack on the Federal employee unions. After all, Department of Defense civilians with top secret clearances have long been union members and their membership has not compromised national security. And many of the heroes of September 11 were unionized. The New York City firefighters who ran up the stairs to their deaths did not see any conflict between worker rights and emergency response. At a time of such massive restructuring of the Federal Government, we must maintain as much continuity as possible. By weakening workers' benefits, the government risks losing many highly qualified individuals to the private sector. There is also a large percentage of workers who, if push comes to shove, can option for early retirement. This is no time for the Federal Government to suffer a so-called ``brain drain,'' and be forced to train individuals from scratch. The last thing we want to do in the middle of our war on terrorism is lose experienced employees on the front lines of this war--employees at the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Border Patrol, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other agencies that work around the clock to prevent another attack. In closing, I would like to emphasize my belief that, in this age of uncertainty, in these uneasy times, the United States deserves a unified, streamlined, and accountable Department of Homeland Security. Equally important, is the need to guarantee that our efforts to combat terrorism, much of which will come under the jurisdiction of this new department, remain consistent to our democratic values and our commitment to an open and free society. We must protect legal immigrants and innocent children, who have no part in this war. We have always been a nation of immigrants--and to change this fundamental truth would undermine one of the pillars of our society. If we fail on either of these fronts, the forces of terror would triumph without another attack. I believe that the Lieberman substitute amendment accomplishes this in a thorough and just way. A Department of Homeland Security under its guidelines will go a long way in making us more secure from terrorist attacks. I stand in support the Lieberman bill. And I remain confident that the executive and legislative branches will be able to work out any existing differences. We must be patient and thorough, and we must get this done right. Present and future generations depend on us.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This means in situations where the risk of fire is absolutely the greatest and projects are being held up in the courts, a judge must consider changing circumstances and whether to renew a preliminary injunction. Anybody filing an administrative appeal to a hazardous reduction project would be required also to raise the issue before the close of notice and comment; in other words, to have some standing to bring an appeal, not just to be able to jump in after all the periods have closed and go to court. These were two of our biggest gives in the interest of trying to gain 60 votes. I truly do not think there is anything else we can do. These are very big concessions, at least as far as I am concerned, and I think that is echoed by Senator Wyden as well. I will quickly outline some of the additional safeguards in our amendment. There would be no road construction in any inventoried roadless area. An ecologically sufficient number of old and large trees would be maintained for each ecosystem; and for fuels reduction projects, agencies would be required to do all thinning from ground level up. This means that thinning would start with small trees and brush at ground level and act as a safeguard against the cutting of larger trees. And in special, or what is called extraordinary circumstances, such as areas with endangered species or tribal issues or where archeological findings may lie, the exclusions from the normal process do not apply. Additionally, I will speak for one moment about the four findings in our amendment because they underlie the problems we are facing. Firstly, in 2002, we find that approximately 6.5 million acres of forest land have burned, 21 people have died, and 3,079 structures have been destroyed. We find the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have spent a billion dollars fighting these fires. We find 73 million acres of public lands are classified in the highest risk of catastrophic fire. We find that forest management policy of fire suppression has resulted in an accumulation of fuel load, dead and dying trees, infested trees, nonnative species, creating fuel ladders that allow fires to reach the crowns of large old trees and cause catastrophic fires. Fourthly, we find the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior should immediately undertake an emergency program to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Obviously, the emergency program is confined to those areas I spoke about. In closing, I thank, first, Senator Wyden. I also thank Senator Bingaman, Senator Daschle, Senator Craig, Senator Domenici, Senator Kyl, and Senator Burns, all of whom have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to reach some agreement. I restate my belief that the forest fires raging throughout the Western United States represent one of the most severe crises facing our Nation. The devastation has and will continue to be immense. It is the greatest human and ecological threat now facing virtually every Western State. This is a crisis that transcends the issue of party politics, and I deeply regret our inability to reach a meaningful compromise, at least at this time. Because the Interior appropriations bill will be on the floor at least for the next few days, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to seek a consensus and I, for one, remain open to one. I am sorry we do not have an agreement to report, but I want to end by thanking Senator Wyden for his leadership. He has a State that has glorious forests, as do I. He has been wonderful, and I hope there is a change and we may be able to work something out together. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, for some time now, Senator Wyden and I have been working together to try to put forward a compromise amendment on two amendments which are on the Interior appropriations bill. One amendment is by Senator Bingaman; the other by Senator Craig. At present, both amendments need 60 votes. Neither amendment has 60 votes. Both amendments deal with a very real emergency in American forests today. It would be a tragedy if we could not use this appropriations bill as an opportunity to move a plan forward to do the emergency work we need to do to protect our people, our property, our forests, and our endangered species from the risk of catastrophic fire. Right now, 190 million acres of public lands are at high risk of catastrophic fire. That is 190 million acres, and 73 million of these are in the highest fire risk category, called class III. Of that class III, 23 million acres have been designated by both the Forest Service and the Department of Interior as in vital need of emergency treatment. Those are the strategic areas that need hazardous fuels taken out of the forests to avoid catastrophic fire. Today in America, moderate to severe drought covers 45 percent of the Continental United States. It is predicted that El Nino is returning, which means we can expect volatile weather patterns, more pronounced rainfall, more pronounced drought. All of this will only exacerbate the risk of catastrophic fire. It is estimated that this is the third hottest summer on record in the United States. To this fact, we are adding that 2002 looks as if it is going to turn out to be the worst fire season on record in the United States. This year, 6 million acres of land has burned. That includes nearly a half a million acres in California, and because we have an Indian summer, we are not out of the forest fire season yet. More property will be lost, more vital habitat for endangered species will be destroyed, and more people will be in greater danger if we do not do something. We have firefighters laying down their lives on these fire lines in some of the worst fires we have ever experienced. Today, fires burn hotter, faster, and more intensely than ever, and there is a reason for this. The reason is because of forest policy which is what has been called fire suppression. That means you go in and suppress the fires as soon as they begin. Of course, that takes a lot of money, and we have used over $1 billion just fighting these fires. It does not prevent a future fire from happening, but I believe fire suppression has to become the policy of the past rather than the policy of the future because what is happening in our forests is that we have an unprecedented buildup of materials on the ground, so-called biomass, fuels in plants and bushes. We have a lot of nonnative species now springing up where certain ancient trees are fire resistant, such as the giant sequoias, for example. If other trees grow up among them, they become fire ladders so that when a fire starts, it has the fuel on the ground. It has the new young trees to use as ladders, and the fire whooshes up, hits the canopies of the old trees which are, for the most part, the habitat of endangered species and the greatness of our ancient forests. The question comes up: How do we work at this? Senator Wyden and I have chosen to see if we can put together a compromise between the Craig amendment and the Bingaman amendment which will allow us to move for the 1 year that is the life of the fiscal year 2003 Interior appropriations bill vigorously to treat some of those areas. The areas that we would treat really is very small. Our recommendation would be up to 7 million acres out of the 24 million acres. We know the forest departments are going to try to do at least 2 million acres. What we are saying to them is: This next year triple your activity, move rapidly. Then we try to set the parameters of that emergency movement. For a moment, I wish to share some of those parameters. We make a number of findings in our amendment that document and reflect the emerging conditions we find in our forests, and I will talk about that in a moment. But the amendment establishes a 1-year pilot project to enable the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to move rapidly to treat up to 7 million of the 24 million acres in those strategic areas. Our amendment would have directed all of the work to be only on those lands at the highest danger level of catastrophic fire. It would stipulate that 70 percent of hazardous fuels reduction projects be done either within one-half mile of a community--that is what is called urban wildland interface--or within municipal watersheds. Those are the watersheds where the fire risk to the ecosystem is the greatest. So 70 percent of the program would be concentrated in the areas where we know there is the greatest risk. The urban interface has been broadly agreed to. There is some question on the watershed areas. Having said that, for many States, rural States in particular, the only way they are going to get any emergency treatment is if we include these watershed areas because this is where they generate the big fires. These are, obviously, the more rural States. California can certainly use all of its funds just within urban interface, but that is not true for more rural States. Our amendment would also allow the administrative appeals process to be truncated for these areas. What we are trying to do is speed things along, and we estimate this would save at least 135 days. Any fuels reduction projects, such as thinning or brush removal, within a half mile of any community would be excluded from what is called NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, thus preventing these projects from being stalled indefinitely. I think there is broad agreement about that. I think the environmental community understands the need to work quickly in areas very close to communities and very close to property. Additionally, any temporary injunctive relief, whether it is a TRO, which is limited in days, we know, or a preliminary injunction, which can go on for a substantial period of time--this is a big give on our part. This is, I think, for Senator Wyden--and he will speak for himself--but certainly for me this is the last best offer to try to get an accommodation with the other side of the aisle. What we did was say that any temporary injunctive relief, preliminary injunction, or TRO, would be limited to 60 days with the authority to renew each temporary injunction without limitation. What we believe it would do is cause the judge to reflect on our findings in the legislation, on the emergency situation, and on the problems directly on the ground at the time. I understand my time is up. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Big Basin Redwoods State Park of Santa Cruz County in California on their 100th anniversary. Established in 1902, Big Basin Redwoods State Park is California's oldest State park. Big Basin Redwoods is the birthplace of the original coastal redwood conservation movement. Today the results of the conservation movement can be seen in the 18,000-plus acres of California redwood forest. The park has the largest continuous stand of Ancient Coast Redwoods south of San Francisco. Additionally, Big Basin Redwoods State Park is considered by many to be the birthplace of both the park and environmental movement in California. At the turn of the 20th century, the remaining redwood forests were disappearing at rate that threatened massive destruction of the ancient trees. The only redwood forests left in America ranged from Oregon to Big Sur. Concerned citizens and organizations such as the Sempervirens Club, persuaded then-Governor Henry T. Gage to sign legislation that would set aside land for a redwood park. Today, the ensuing generations of those environmentally concerned citizens are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the preservation of the California redwood lands. The perseverance and dedication to protecting primeval forest places that the founders of the Big Basin Redwoods State Park exemplified are recognized and celebrated today. Without such dedication to the environmental movement hundreds of forests across the country would have been destroyed. The Big Basin Redwoods State Park contains both cultural and historical sites of national importance, wildlife habitats, natural ecological preserves, and recreational opportunities for the public. The Big Basin Redwoods State Park is a unique and uncommon place of historical and primeval environmental importance. Therefore, special recognition is deserved on September 13, 2002, the 100th anniversary of its founding.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Ira Yellin, who passed away on September 10. He was only 62 years old. My heart goes out to his wife, Adele, to his daughter Jessica and his son Seth, to his mother Dorothy and his two brothers, Marc and Albert. Ira was a true visionary, a man who championed the restoration of downtown Los Angeles long before it was popular. His own restoration of the Grand Central Market, an enduring emblem of the ethnic diversity that is Los Angeles, is perhaps the greatest of his many accomplishments as a real estate developer. Yet Ira was involved in so much more than real estate. He was a civic and community leader, and served as a past president of the American Jewish Committee and a member of the board of the Skirball Cultural Center and the J. Paul Getty Trust. The son of a Talmudic scholar, an ex-Marine, an urban pioneer, a political and social activist, Ira was an optimistic man of boundless energy. Not even the lung cancer that he battled so bravely over the last year could slow him down. Up until the very end of his life he maintained his commitment to his work, to his community and, above all, to his loving family, in a way which has earned my highest admiration and my deepest affection. Ira Yellin was a wonderful man who will be sorely missed, yet both his notable achievements and his engaging personality have made a lasting impact on all of us. He will not be soon forgotten.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Boxer, to introduce legislation that would name a postal facility in Los Angeles, California after the great Los Angeles Laker's announcer, Francis Dayle ``Chick'' Hearn. Chick Hearn was born on November 27, 1916, in Buda, IL. His interest in broadcasting began when he worked for the Armed Forces Radio, while he was stationed in the Philippines during World War II. Soon after he was discharged, he began announcing Bradley University basketball games for a radio station in Peoria, IL. Mr. Hearn's desire to work in radio broadcasting soon led him to Southern California, where he worked for CBS radio announcing University of Southern California football games. Then, in 1961, Chick Hearn began announcing Lakers' game when the franchise moved from Minnesota to Los Angeles. His contributions to the game go far beyond giving the fans the play- by-play. Mr. Hearn pioneered basketball phrases, such as ``airball'' and ``slam dunk'' and ``finger role'' which are now well known and often used by Americans who participate or have an interest in basketball. Perhaps the most distinguished characteristic of Chick Hearn's career is his extraordinary dedication to his work. Beginning on November 21, 1965, Mr. Hearn announced a record 3,338 consecutive games for the Los Angeles Lakers. This streak ended on December 16, 2001, three days before Mr. Hearn underwent heart surgery. Until his death on August 5, 2002, Hearn had been the only play-by-play announcer the Los Angeles Lakers had ever had. During his distinguished career of more than 40 years with the Los Angeles Lakers, Mr. Hearn saw the Lakers capture nine NBA titles. He had the opportunity to watch the careers of basketball stars such as Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Magic Johnson, and he spread his love of basketball to all who listened. He is a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame and the Sportcasters Hall of Fame. In honor of Chick Hearn's dedicated service, it is my pleasure to introduce legislation to name the post office at 5805 White Oak Avenue in Encino, CA. It is my hope that the Senate will approve this legislation, and honor the memory of Chick Hearn.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments directly following Senator Wyden, if I may.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I truly believe we have a real fire emergency in America's forests. It is precipitated somewhat by drought, but it is precipitated by a very flawed forest policy, a forest policy that has practiced fire suppression and spent over a billion dollars this year in suppressing the largest number of acres burned in the history of our Nation--6 million acres burned, 28 people lost, hundreds of millions of dollars of property lost, and a major concern of the American people. All the money cannot be spent suppressing fires. We have to begin to spend the money grooming forests so they are more fire resistant. Over the past 100 years, there has been a buildup of underbrush, a buildup of dead, dying, and downed trees, a buildup of infested trees, and a buildup of nonindigenous species trees which become fire ladders. All of this presents fire ladders. So a fire begins, and it ``ladders'' up into the crowns of old growth, and there is a fire conflagration. I watched that happen in Colorado. I flew over the fires in Arizona. We watched it happen in New Mexico. Yes, it is happening in California, and we are not through with our fire season yet. There is a true bona fide message. It needs to be met. I have been trying to work with Senator Wyden, Senator Craig, Senator Kyl, Senator Domenici, Senator Burns. We have spent hours trying to come up with a bipartisan amendment which could get 60 votes on this floor. I believe we are relatively close to those 60 votes. Senator Wyden has indicated some of the parameters in which we have been negotiating. We have 74 million acres of forests in the highest risk of catastrophic fire; 24 million of those acres are Federal lands. We took the Federal lands--California alone has 7 million acres of the 24 million acres in what is called class 3, highest risk of catastrophic fire--to see if we could create for 1 year, as an amendment in an appropriations bill, an expedited program to address those acres, making 70 percent of the effort in urban interface areas where we find property, and people, where fire is devastating. Also, in some of the watershed areas, the areas of heaviest pest infestation, windthrow, as well as those acres which are apt to burn--highly catastrophic. We are very close. We can agree on the number of acres which, after all, will be conditioned by the amount of money. We have agreed to truncate the administrative process. We concentrate on the areas I have mentioned. But on this side of the aisle, there are very strong feelings we should not change the judicial review process. We are trying to come to grips with the Republicans on this issue. I am hopeful we can. Those on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee who are negotiating hopefully will be on that subcommittee next year as well. If we can have a 1-year trial of moving the administrative processes faster, creating the emergency within these 5 to 7 million acres of the 24 million acres, confining most of it to the urban interface and the watersheds that are in the resource management and forestry plans, we can make a difference. We can see whether it works. There are people who say it will not work because there are individuals or groups who will go into court to try to stop us. I am not sure that is entirely correct. I thought so initially, and then I looked at a GAO letter. I will read part of it into the Record. It is dated August 31, 2001. It says: In summary, as of July 18, 2001, the Forest Service had completed the necessary environmental analyses and had decided to implement 1,671 hazardous fuel reduction projects in fiscal year 2001. Of these projects, 20 (about 1 percent) had been appealed and none had been litigated. Appellates included environmental groups, recreation groups, private industry interests, and individuals. That is just with one program, that hazardous fuel reduction project in that year. It would indicate that in this small area court challenges have not been a big problem. Many people who believe in the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, believe very strongly that we should not vitiate the NEPA process in any way, and we should not vitiate the judicial process in any way in this 1-year pilot project. I am hopeful we will be able to find an accommodation that will get 60 votes. On this side, we clearly have to get Democrats centered around an effort. And on the Republican side, we have to be able to convince them we are serious about moving in a constructive, emergency way to address the problem of catastrophic fire in our country. We can do it. Senator Craig, Senator Kyl, Senator Burns, Senator Domenici, all want to do it. It is true that on both sides there are different approaches. I believe in a draft either called Bingaman 3 or Feinstein Modified-- whatever one wants to call it. We are relatively close to that. I am hopeful we can, by unanimous consent, not take the vote on any of these at this time but continue to negotiate at least until tomorrow morning, and hopefully be able to get through the impasse we are in at the moment--or even to next week. This bill will not be included. I believe it is important we try to move more rapidly this year with hazardous fuels mitigation. In what is Bingaman 3 or Feinstein Modified--whatever anyone wants to call it--we have a very good first start. We would like to hear from the other side of the aisle. We would like to continue these negotiations. I am hopeful there is not a vote at this time, that we are able to continue the matter, and we are able to continue to negotiate. I was present at meetings for 3 hours yesterday. I was in a conference call on it for an hour and a half last night. I want the Senate to know our efforts are sincere, they are earnest, that we would like to find an accommodation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I amend that?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Boxer to introduce legislation that would name a post office in Los Angeles, CA after Nathaniel Adams Coles, whom we all know as Nat ``King'' Cole. Nat ``King'' Cole was a great American vocalist and entertainer, and the best selling African-American recording artist of his generation. Born in 1919 in Montgomery, AL, Mr. Cole proved, at an early age, to be quite musically adept. At the age of four, he gave his first public performance playing the piano and singing at Chicago's Regal Theater. In 1937, as a struggling young musician, he moved to Southern California. While in Los Angeles, Mr. Cole was asked to put together a small musical group which was to play at the Sewanee Inn, a Los Angeles nightclub. The owner of the Sewanee Inn is responsible for the nickname ``King Cole'' because he asked him to wear a golden paper crown. Though the crown was short lived, the nickname stuck and the musical group became known as the King Cole Trio. In 1943, the King Cole Trio signed with a fledgling record company known as Capital Records. The next year, Capital Records released a song written by Nat ``King'' Cole and recorded by the King Cole Trio called ``Straighten Up and Fly Right.'' The song became a huge hit due to its popularity with audiences of different races. The King Cole Trio went on to have a series of musical hits that include ``For Sentimental Reasons'' and ``The Christmas Song.'' Nat ``King'' Cole went on to sell so many records that Capital Records' headquarters became known as the ``House that Nat built.'' Nat ``King'' Cole's legacy not only encompasses his musical genius, but also his bravery in overcoming racial intolerance. During his career, he played in some clubs where he was the first ever Black entertainer to perform. He also endured an attack from white supremacists while on stage in Birmingham, Alabama in 1956. Mr. Cole holds a special place in the hearts of Los Angeles residents, as a man who brought down racial barriers. In 1948, Mr. Cole and his family purchased a home in the exclusive Hancock Park section of Los Angeles. His would-be neighbors formed an association to prevent him from moving into the all-white community. Overcoming these protests and threats, Mr. Cole moved in and became the first family to integrate the community. In honor of this distinguished former resident, members of the community surrounding the Oakwood Station Post Office, have advocated that the post office at 265 South Western Avenue in Los Angeles be named after Nat ``King'' Cole. It is my pleasure to introduce such legislation, and I hope that my colleagues will support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Boxer, to introduce legislation that would name a postal facility in Los Angeles, California after the great Los Angeles Laker's announcer, Francis Dayle ``Chick'' Hearn. Chick Hearn was born on November 27, 1916, in Buda, IL. His interest in broadcasting began when he worked for the Armed Forces Radio, while he was stationed in the Philippines during World War II. Soon after he was discharged, he began announcing Bradley University basketball games for a radio station in Peoria, IL. Mr. Hearn's desire to work in radio broadcasting soon led him to Southern California, where he worked for CBS radio announcing University of Southern California football games. Then, in 1961, Chick Hearn began announcing Lakers' game when the franchise moved from Minnesota to Los Angeles. His contributions to the game go far beyond giving the fans the play- by-play. Mr. Hearn pioneered basketball phrases, such as ``airball'' and ``slam dunk'' and ``finger role'' which are now well known and often used by Americans who participate or have an interest in basketball. Perhaps the most distinguished characteristic of Chick Hearn's career is his extraordinary dedication to his work. Beginning on November 21, 1965, Mr. Hearn announced a record 3,338 consecutive games for the Los Angeles Lakers. This streak ended on December 16, 2001, three days before Mr. Hearn underwent heart surgery. Until his death on August 5, 2002, Hearn had been the only play-by-play announcer the Los Angeles Lakers had ever had. During his distinguished career of more than 40 years with the Los Angeles Lakers, Mr. Hearn saw the Lakers capture nine NBA titles. He had the opportunity to watch the careers of basketball stars such as Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Magic Johnson, and he spread his love of basketball to all who listened. He is a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame and the Sportcasters Hall of Fame. In honor of Chick Hearn's dedicated service, it is my pleasure to introduce legislation to name the post office at 5805 White Oak Avenue in Encino, CA. It is my hope that the Senate will approve this legislation, and honor the memory of Chick Hearn.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Boxer to introduce legislation that would name a post office in Los Angeles, CA after Nathaniel Adams Coles, whom we all know as Nat ``King'' Cole. Nat ``King'' Cole was a great American vocalist and entertainer, and the best selling African-American recording artist of his generation. Born in 1919 in Montgomery, AL, Mr. Cole proved, at an early age, to be quite musically adept. At the age of four, he gave his first public performance playing the piano and singing at Chicago's Regal Theater. In 1937, as a struggling young musician, he moved to Southern California. While in Los Angeles, Mr. Cole was asked to put together a small musical group which was to play at the Sewanee Inn, a Los Angeles nightclub. The owner of the Sewanee Inn is responsible for the nickname ``King Cole'' because he asked him to wear a golden paper crown. Though the crown was short lived, the nickname stuck and the musical group became known as the King Cole Trio. In 1943, the King Cole Trio signed with a fledgling record company known as Capital Records. The next year, Capital Records released a song written by Nat ``King'' Cole and recorded by the King Cole Trio called ``Straighten Up and Fly Right.'' The song became a huge hit due to its popularity with audiences of different races. The King Cole Trio went on to have a series of musical hits that include ``For Sentimental Reasons'' and ``The Christmas Song.'' Nat ``King'' Cole went on to sell so many records that Capital Records' headquarters became known as the ``House that Nat built.'' Nat ``King'' Cole's legacy not only encompasses his musical genius, but also his bravery in overcoming racial intolerance. During his career, he played in some clubs where he was the first ever Black entertainer to perform. He also endured an attack from white supremacists while on stage in Birmingham, Alabama in 1956. Mr. Cole holds a special place in the hearts of Los Angeles residents, as a man who brought down racial barriers. In 1948, Mr. Cole and his family purchased a home in the exclusive Hancock Park section of Los Angeles. His would-be neighbors formed an association to prevent him from moving into the all-white community. Overcoming these protests and threats, Mr. Cole moved in and became the first family to integrate the community. In honor of this distinguished former resident, members of the community surrounding the Oakwood Station Post Office, have advocated that the post office at 265 South Western Avenue in Los Angeles be named after Nat ``King'' Cole. It is my pleasure to introduce such legislation, and I hope that my colleagues will support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to share some of my thoughts on this very special day, a day that commemorates one of the darkest days in our Nation's history. Those of us who listened this morning to the recitation of the names of those killed in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found in those names both a message of grief and one deep in sorrow. Also in those names was a profound message of how deeply the world is interwoven. The reading of these names was, for me, an unforgettable message of our diversity. My sorrow, my sympathy, my condolences go to those who have lost so much. For many, they have lost everything; yet they still have their spirit, their hope, and their determination, and they still have the love of a very sympathetic Nation. On September 11, we all felt as if the loss was too much to bear, as if it would be impossible to go on. But out of the ashes of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we in Congress returned to work. We tried in our legislative ways to address the terrorist threat. Within a week of the attack, we approved a resolution authorizing the President to use force against those who would perpetuate or harbor the terrorists. Within a month, we approved the USA Patriot Act, which authorized our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to take the necessary steps to root out the terrorist threat and to protect the Nation. In May of this year, we approved the border security and visa reform legislation, which overhauled the way this Nation allows immigrants and visitors into the country. In June, we approved a bioterrorism bill that included strict certification requirements for laboratories that handle anthrax, smallpox, and more than 30 other deadly pathogens. At the same time, the United States launched a war against terror. In Afghanistan, the U.S. forces, working with the Northern Alliance, ousted the Taliban, fought al-Qaida troops, and made it possible for Hamid Karzai to be elected President--Afghanistan's first democratic election. U.S. special forces were also sent to the Philippines, to Yemen, and Georgia to train local troops on how to fight the war against terror. We have broken up al-Qaida cells in Spain, France, Morocco, and Singapore, preventing planned attacks. In the financial world, the Treasury Department began examining the financing of terrorist organizations, freezing more than $34 million in terrorist assets. Now the Senate is considering two additional steps to defend our Nation: a bill to create a new Department of Homeland Defense and a comprehensive review of the intelligence failures that led to 9/11. I would expect the Senate to approve the homeland defense bill in the coming weeks, and, hopefully, it will be signed into law by the end of the year. On September 17, the Intelligence Committees of both the House and the Senate will open their first hearings on our intelligence review, which has been going on now for 6 months. One year has now passed. The Nation has shown its resolve and resiliency. Now we must show our staying power. For me, what emerged from 9/11 were four specific points: First, we must stay the course on the war on terror. We must ferret out, bring to justice, one by one, group by group, those al-Qaida, or others, who would simply kill because they hate. Secondly, we must make this country as safe as possible: eliminate loopholes in laws, prevent fraudulent entry into our country, ensure that deadly chemicals and biological agents are properly handled, and see that the national security is protected, wherever possible. Thirdly, we have to reinforce the hallmarks of America: liberty, justice, freedom. Despite this crisis, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights remain strong and central to our way of life. Finally, we need to celebrate our democracy, and the way we do that is simple: We make it work. We produce for our people. We pass good legislation. We administer the programs. We show that democracy offers solutions to the real problems of our society. Let me say one thing about remaining vigilant in the war against terror. Much of the al-Qaida organization remains intact, including two-thirds of the leadership, and possibly Osama bin Laden himself. Afghanistan is our beachhead in the war on terror. We cannot lose it or we lose the war on terror. Yet Afghanistan's leadership is fragile. Just last week there was an attack on President Karzai's life. We have an obligation to provide for the security of Afghanistan and its leaders and ensure that the nation does not fall under the control of regional warlords. We must ensure that the Afghan economy becomes upwardly mobile. We have work to do to find those in hiding, whether in Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Southeast Asia, and, yes, in our own country. Al-Qaida remains poised to do their dirty deeds. America learned on September 11 a very simple and sobering lesson-- that there are people in the world who would destroy us if they could. We must remember this fact and do all we can to stop them. This means staying the course and winning the war against terror. This means keeping focused on the immediate threat from al-Qaida, and this means looking for new ways to strengthen our Nation's homeland defense. As we all consider the past year, let us remember all of those who perished in the attacks and in their memory rededicate ourselves to doing all we can to making our Nation strong and preventing a similar attack in the future. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking the distinguished Senator from Texas for her leadership, for her perspicacity, for her work on this bill. We have to remember this bill was introduced exactly 1 week ago. We had hearings. It is on the floor. It is going to be passed today. I hope it sends a message to the Nation. I hope that message is, if yours is a State that doesn't have an AMBER Alert, let us get one. Let me tell you why. Seventy-four percent of the children who are abducted are lost within the first day. Therefore, if you can identify the abductor, if you can identify a license plate, you may well save the life of a child. I think that came in loudly and clearly to both Senator Hutchison and me in the Judiciary Committee. The Senator mentioned Nichole Timmons and her mother Sharon. It was interesting. Nichole was kidnapped by the gardener who worked at their home. She was taken across the State line from Riverside County into Nevada. Within 24 hours, a tribal officer in Nevada recognized the license plate of the vehicle, and that went out on an AMBER Alert. There was duct tape in that car. There was a metal rod in that car. If the license had not been run, Nichole never would have come home. The AMBER Alert worked. In my State of California, we have only had the AMBER Alert for about a month. There have been 13 AMBER Alerts. One was a misstep. Eight were stranger abductions. Four were family-related abductions. All 12 of those children were returned. Never before have I seen a statistic such as that. We know the AMBER Alert works. Now we have an opportunity to get this nationwide. I think the bill is thoughtful. I think it is well set out. Since 1996, when the AMBER Alert went into being, it has been credited with the return of 30 children to their families, including one case in which the abductor, interestingly enough, released the child himself after hearing the alert. In other words, it can act as a deterrent as well. What is more important than our children, other than war and peace? I don't think anything. This is really important because it means you can avoid a child being murdered simply by issuing this AMBER Alert. The Senator has indicated the various points of the bill. But I want to say this. The AMBER Alert is typically issued only when a law enforcement agency confirms that a predatory child abduction has occurred. When the child is in imminent danger and there is information available that is disseminated to the public, they can assist in the safe recovery of the child. In the bill, we have provided that the Attorney General would set these minimum standards. So the same standards would be used across every State, probably close to what I have read, and therefore avoid a plethora of unnecessary AMBER Alerts. We can have a system which really functions well in those cases where the likelihood is that something grievous could in fact happen to that child. I am hopeful that we will shortly have a national system with 15 AMBER Alerts. We are very proud that the National Association of Broadcasters is strongly supportive. As you know, when an AMBER Alert goes out, it interrupts the television program or radio program. It is on the highway. That is what gives the broad knowledge to people. Interestingly enough, at the hearing, Marc Klaas was also there. His daughter Polly several years ago--in the mid-1990s--was taken from her bedroom when she had a sleepover with a number of girls in her home. Someone came into her home and took her. He truly believes that had AMBER Alert been in place, Polly might have been saved. At that hearing, we had Nichole and her mother. She was saved. And we had Marc Klaas, who lost his daughter because there was not an AMBER Alert. For many of us, it was a real juxtaposition. I thank the Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I thank my colleague, Senator Hutchison. I particularly thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Without Senator Leahy, this bill couldn't have been put on the calendar, it couldn't have been marked up, and it couldn't have been moved in the very short time in which it was. I think it has accomplished something for our children today. It will pass unanimously. Only 15 States have it. And hopefully other States are going to move very rapidly. Hopefully one day Senator Hutchison and I will be able to come before you, Mr. President, and the rest of this body, and say that every State in the United States today has an AMBER Alert. Here are the statistics, ladies and gentlemen. We have saved a lot of children and had them returned to their parents. I only say to the Senator, my friend, good work. I am delighted to be here today. I thank my colleagues for voting for this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, over the last few months the American people have awakened to the tragic reality that our children face the very real threat of predatory criminals each and every day. The airwaves have been filled with story after story of children who have been abducted, sometimes to be found alive later thanks to an AMBER alert or good law enforcement work; sometimes to be found, tragically, dead; and sometimes never to be found at all. This is not a new problem, but the increased attention to the problem gives us a real opportunity to make some much-needed changes in the law to prevent some of these horrible crimes and to better protect the children of this Nation. The bill Senator Hatch and I introduce today will help ensure that law enforcement officers have the tools and resources they need to find, prosecute, and severely punish those who commit crimes against innocent children. Specifically, the Hatch-Feinstein Child Crime Bill would do the following: First, the legislation directs the FBI to establish a National Crimes Against Children Response Center. This Center would have as its primary mission the development of a comprehensive, rapid response plan to reported crimes involving the victimization of children. Working undoubtedly in conjunction with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the AMBER Alert systems nationwide, and other agencies and private entities as well, this Center would be the focal point for seeing that the victimization of children does not go unsolved, or unpunished. Second, the legislation will create a new Crimes Against Children Section at the Department of Justice, tasked with prosecuting crimes against children; providing guidance and assistance to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and personnel who handle such cases; coordinating efforts with international law enforcement agencies to combat crimes against children; and acting as a liaison with the legislative and judicial branches of government. The bill also directs this new office in DOJ to create a national Internet site that will consolidate sex offender information which States currently release under the federal reporting act. The bill also directs States that have not developed Internet sites to do so. Currently, all 50 States have registration statutes that require sex offenders to register and to share information with the United States Attorney General through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and over 30 States make offender information available to the public on the Internet. But not all States include all available information, and there is no single place to easily acquire this information about local sex offenders. The national database will be such a place. The legislation also prevents the use of the so-called ``Marital Privilege'' to allow one spouse to protect another in cases where a parent, guardian or supervising adult has abused a child in the home. If an adult is abusing a child in his or her own home, it is vital to put a stop to the situation. Allowing a spouse to refuse to testify about the abuse by asserting an outdated ``marital privilege'' puts the child at continuing risk. This makes no sense. In order to assist law enforcement track and punish child predators and other violent criminals, this legislation also expands the class of offenses that are included in the Combined DNA Index System, CODIS, by adding to the system all Federal felonies and additional offenses that subject Federal offenders to sex registration requirements. Currently, only select Federal offenses are entered in CODIS. The bill makes two modifications to Rule 414 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which already allows evidence of a defendant's prior acts of child molestation to be admitted in a criminal child molestation case. Unfortunately, the definition of prior acts of child abuse includes only children under 14, so acts against 15 or 16-year olds, for instance, are inadmissable. This legislation extends the definition of ``child'' contained in Rule 414 to include any person below the age of 18--rather than age 14. And the amendment also makes clear that where a defendant previously possessed what may have been virtual, as opposed to actual, child pornography, such evidence is admissible under Rule 414. We have also included language to expand the Federal Wiretap Act by adding as predicate offenses to the statute, sex trafficking, sex exploitation, and other interstate sex offenses. Currently, the wiretap statute authorizes the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications in the investigation of just two sexual exploitation of children crimes. To obtain a wiretap, law enforcement authorities will still need to meet the strict statutory guidelines of the wiretap statute and obtain authorization from a court. The legislation would also extend the maximum supervised release period that applies to sexual offenders, by granting Federal judges the discretion to impose up to lifetime periods of supervised release for individuals who are convicted of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, transportation for illegal sexual activity, or sex trafficking offenses. Under current law, a judge can impose no more than 5 years of supervised release for a serious felony, and no more than 3 years for a lesser categorized offense. This amendment will not require judges to impose a period of supervised release longer than 5 years; it simply authorizes them to do so where the judge sees fit based on the nature and circumstances of the particular case. Some sexual offenders may pose a potential risk to their communities for longer than 5 years, and discretion to supervise those offenders past an artificial time limit is simply common sense. The legislation also increases the maximum penalties that apply to certain sexual offenses, by doubling the maximum penalties for sex offenses involving the trafficking of children and other interstate elements. This will allow the Sentencing Commission, and federal judges, greater latitude in determining sentences for the worst of offenders. No changes are made to mandatory minimums. Finally, we direct the Sentencing Commission to review the guidelines that apply to child abuse and exploitation offenses to determine whether they are sufficiently severe. Earlier this month Senator Hutchinson and I introduced legislation to help establish a national AMBER alert system. These systems have been proven effective in finding abducted children quickly, and most certainly saving some lives. That bill, which will pass tonight is one step in protecting our children from dangerous predators. The bill I introduce today with my good friend Senator Hatch is simply another piece of the anti-predator puzzle. I hope my colleagues will join us in this effort.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to honor the heroism of Alan Beaven--a Californian aboard Flight 93 who helped prevent the terrorists from crashing another airplane into its intended target on September 11, 2001. As we approach the one-year anniversary of that horrible day, our thoughts turn to the heroes like Alan who gave their lives to save others. To honor the courageous passengers of Flight 93, I joined Senator Specter to co-sponsor the ``Flight 93 National Memorial Act,'' which I believe the Senate will pass today to establish a memorial at the crash site in Pennsylvania. This legislation will also establish a Flight 93 Advisory Commission to recommend planning, design, construction, and long-term management of the memorial. I believe it is important to pass this legislation before the anniversary of September 11 to appropriately recognize the heroism of Alan Beaven and the other Flight 93 passengers. I would like to take a few moments to tell the world about Alan and his family. Alan Beaven wasn't supposed to be on Flight 93 that tragic day. On Monday, September 10, Alan and his wife Kimberly were in New York planning for a year long sabbatical in India to work for a humanitarian foundation. Alan was a top environmental lawyer in San Francisco who planned to volunteer his services in India. Alan was headed east, not west, but there was one last case involving pollution in the American River near Sacramento and settlement talks had broken down that Monday. Alan had to head back. Tuesday morning Alan drove to Newark, New Jersey to catch a flight to the West Coast. Flight 93 was 40 minutes late that day--giving passengers onboard time to learn about the planes that had crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A few called home on cell phones to express their love and say that a group of passengers were determined to fight back against the hijackers--Alan Beaven was one of those brave men. No one knows for sure what happened aboard that airplane, but we do know countless lives were saved when that plane was diverted from its intended target. Even though Alan's seat was in the back of the airplane, his remains were found in the cockpit at the crash site in Pennsylvania. The Beaven family has also heard Alan on the cockpit voice recorder, so it is clear that Alan, standing 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing over 200 pounds, fought with the hijackers. I will enter two letters I have received from the Beaven family into the Record. Alan's wife, Kimberly, and his son, Chris, wrote to me about what they heard on the cockpit voice recorder in April when the families of the passengers of Flight 93 were allowed to listen to the struggle aboard the aircraft. My heart goes out to Alan's wife, Kimberly, and his three children John, Chris, and Sonali. John earned a biology degree at UC San Diego where he was captain of the baseball team and an Olympic torch bearer when the torch went through Sacramento on its way to Salt Lake City this past winter. John's brother Chris attends Loyola Marymount University and sister Sonali is 5-years-old. Alan's great joy was his family. He spent hours reading to Sonali, scuba diving with Chris, and playing catch with John. In fact, John's early memories of his father were of the two of them playing catch for hours on end. When John was 5, the family moved from London to New York and before they could drop off their luggage, young John made Alan play catch in Central Park. In a tribute to Alan, the Beaven family decided not to have a funeral, but instead a ``Thanksgiving for the life of Alan Anthony Beaven.'' And what a life it was. Alan was born in New Zealand on October 15, 1952. He worked as an attorney in New Zealand, England, New York, and California. As a top environmental lawyer, Alan worked on over 100 clean water cases in just 10 years in California. Friends and family of Alan say they are not surprised that Alan risked his own life so selflessly to save others. The day after the terrorist attacks on our nation, Alan's secretary went into his office and found a single piece of paper tacked up at eye level on the wall in front of his desk. It was a quote he heard that week which summed up how he lived his life, and how he ended it when he joined others to fight back against the terrorists. Alan wrote, ``Fear, who cares?'' And these words adequately describe his actions aboard Flight 93. I did not know Alan Beaven, but this quote tells me all I need to know about him--that he was a fearless, loving, and devoted man. One year later, it is clear that our Nation has lost a superstar environmental lawyer, a loving father and husband, and a true hero-- Alan Beaven. I ask unanimous consent to print the two letters to which I referred in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to honor the late Philo T. Farnsworth and the Farnsworth family on the 75th anniversary of the invention of the electric television. It was on September 7, 1927, while working in his small, cramped laboratory at 202 Green Street in San Francisco, that Philo Farnsworth conducted the first successful experiments that form the basis for today's television. Upon completing the very first transmission of an electronic image, Farnsworth sent a telegram to his investors that simply said, ``The Damn Thing Works.'' Farnsworth first conceptualized these ideas one summer day while tilling a potato field on his family's farm. Riding atop the horse driven plow, the 14 year-old Farnsworth was struck by the crisscrossed patterns in the field. Like the furrows in the field front of him, Farnsworth believed he could separate a picture into lines and reassemble them elsewhere. In 1930, Farnsworth obtained the patents for his invention, which employs a magnetically deflected electron beam inside a cathode ray tube to transmit a picture. All forms of video in use in the world today, including computer displays, trace their origins to Farnsworth's patents and this seminal event 75 years ago. When Farnsworth died at the age of 64 in 1971, he held more than 300 U.S. and foreign patents. In September 1983, he was one of four inventors honored by the U.S. Postal Service with a stamp bearing his portrait. My home State of California has recognized his invention of the electronic television by placing a State historical marker memorializing the event in front of his former lab in San Francisco. In addition, the mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, recently issued a proclamation making September 7, 2002, Philo Taylor Farnsworth Day in that city. Before I conclude today, I also want to recognize the important contributions of Elma ``Pem'' Farnsworth, now 94 years of age and the only living witness to this historic 1927 event. Mrs. Farnsworth, a talented scientist in her own right, worked closely with her husband on many of his inventions. Often called ``The Mother of the Television,'' Mrs. Farnsworth now spends her retirement days residing in Fort Wayne, IN, working tirelessly to ensure that the legacy of Philo Farnsworth's inventions will live on.