Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I have no objection if by unanimous consent the morning business session, which was to go from 12:30 to 1, could be extended from 12:45 to 1:15 so that I might have an opportunity to deliver remarks for which I have been waiting.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I was hoping 20 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to express my growing concern that we may shortly be faced with a decision to unilaterally invade another nation-state, and that is the State of Iraq. This concern has been heightened by the news of today's assassination attempt of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kandahar. Earlier on, a car bomb exploded in central Kabul, killing at least 22 people. This event, in my view, underscores the point that our primary focus must remain on our immediate war on terrorism being waged in troubled Afghanistan, where our soldiers are on the front line. As a matter of fact, preliminary reports indicate it was Americans who took down the attempted assassins. While I welcome President Bush's recent statement indicating he will seek congressional approval of such a use of force, I believe any action in Iraq at this time, without allied support, without United Nations support, and without a compelling case for just cause, would be both morally wrong and politically mistaken. I just returned from a trip to Europe. As part of my role as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, I toured U.S. military bases and met with a variety of individuals. They included members of the intelligence community, the military, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. I was shocked at how dramatically perceptions in Europe have shifted since September 11 toward our country. All of the sympathy and concern we received in the wake of the terrorist attacks has apparently vanished, replaced by the sense that the United States is becoming an arrogant and aggressive power, a nation that simply gives orders, a nation that neither listens nor hears. When I was in Europe, much attention was given to the absence of Presidential participation at the Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. And this, on top of our rejection of the Kyoto treaty, our casting of aspersions on international accords such as the International Criminal Court, the Anti-Ballistic Missile and Landmine treaties, has led to a growing belief, right or wrong, that the United States is using its power in an increasingly unilateral and somewhat arrogant manner. Above all, there is our approach to Iraq and our perceived readiness to invade that nation unilaterally. I believe we have to ask many critical questions, most of which are unanswered. Questions about the ongoing war on terrorism. How do we stay the course, root out terrorism and, at the same time, initiate war with a nation-state which, to this day, remains unconnected to 9/11. Questions about the extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and about who will get to them first. Questions about going it alone in Iraq. Questions about casualties and cost. Questions about collateral human damage--civilians killed in the short term and in the long run. Questions about the future of Iraq, about whether we can honestly expect a democracy to be created out of a nation consumed by tribal factionalism. And questions about what the long-term impact might be on the Arab world, on the Middle East. What if Iraq attacks Israel? What will we do, and what will the world do? Present United States policy toward Iraq stands in stark contrast to how we conducted Operation Desert Storm just over a decade ago. Then, the first Bush administration spent several months building a broad- based coalition that included 30 nations, including many in the Islamic world. It sought and received resolutions supporting the use of force against Iraq from the United States Congress and the United Nations Security Council, and American and international public opinion stood firmly behind such action. Today, no nation is firmly allied with the United States on this issue. At the very least, I believe we should launch a major diplomatic effort with the United Nations, our allies, and our Arab friends, with the goal of delivering an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein: Either open up or go down. If he does not comply with this demand, it will give the United States added moral and diplomatic strength to any future effort. It will help unite the world community behind us. Additionally, I am very concerned that the United States stay the course on our war against terrorism. To date, there is no direct connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the 9/11 attacks that has been substantiated. This means staying the course in our war against terrorism, part of which exists in Afghanistan. The government of Hamid Karzai is fragile at best. Today should show that. During its first 6 months in power, two Cabinet officials have been assassinated. Today, President Karzai himself barely escaped an assassination attempt, and a major act of terrorism has killed many in central Kabul. The Karzai government must have security and stability, or it will perish and so will democracy. Additionally, we know the Taliban and al-Qaida lurk in the remote mountains, waiting for an opportune moment to come back. If Afghanistan cannot be stabilized, if its streets and homes cannot be made secure, and if its first democratic government cannot survive, this will be a very serious setback. Afghanistan is our beachhead in the war on terror. We cannot lose it, or we lose the war on terror. We must put al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and a host of other terrorist groups out of business before they can strike out again at America and our interests. That is why concentrating on this war--the critical war against terrorism--is so important. An attack on Iraq at this time would only deflect from this war, by diverting attention and forces away from bringing to justice the perpetrators of 9/11. Can we afford to do this? If there is an imminent threat to the United States or to our interests, then we must act. At this moment, however, I do not believe such a threat exists. No one doubts that Iraq has chemical or biological weapons and the means to deliver them. They have used them on at least three occasions, but they have not used them in the last 10 years, and I believe they know what will happen if they do use them. What is less clear, however, is the status of Iraq's nuclear weapons capability. In 1981, Israel destroyed the Osiraq reactor provided by France. While Iraq continues to seek to develop nuclear capability, there is no evidence I have found that Iraq is nuclear capable today. So there is no imminent threat. Secretary Rumsfeld has claimed that if we wait for Iraq to develop nuclear weapons, then it will be too late. He is right. The key is to find a way to stop Iraqi nuclear ambition, and stop it now, which is why opening Iraq's borders to a search and destroy mission for weapons of mass destruction, conducted by our allies, our friends in the Arab world, and the United Nations, is critical. I believe this requires renewed diplomatic efforts on our part, with the United Nations, with our allies, and with friendly Arab nations. We must stop Iraq from becoming nuclear capable. And the world in turn must respond. Otherwise, an attack becomes the only alternative. As Gen. Wesley Clark recently stated: In the war on terrorism, alliances are not an obstacle to victory. They're the key to it. By acting unilaterally, the United States not only runs the risk of isolating these long-standing allies, but also of solidifying the entire Arab world sharply against us. This may not result in any direct or traditional military response against the United States, but what about a personal jihad throughout this country--a jihad of bombs and other terrorist acts carried out throughout the world? There are people out there eminently capable and able to finance doing just that. With the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not yet under control, a United States attack on Iraq would certainly fuel the fire of Islamic fanaticism, uniting the Arab world against the West and Israel. The consequences could be unprecedented and beyond our present comprehension. The Israeli-Palestinian situation should be our highest priority. This conflict must be resolved. The United States must use its influence and leadership here, with the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the surrounding Arab world. Here, too, we must stay the course. At the same time, there is some troubling evidence today of the preparation of a second front in southern Lebanon to attack Israel in the event we attack Iraq. Ambassador Dennis Ross recently told me of thousands--he mentioned 10,000--extended-range Katyusha rockets that have been moved through Syria from Iran and into southern Lebanon, for an attack on Israel. He said they had been extended so that they could hit at the major Israeli industrial zone north of Haifa. I believe this has been confirmed. In the face of all of this, assume we do attack Iraq. Consider that we mobilize 250,000 to 300,000 soldiers, our aircraft carriers, our B- 52s, our 117s. This will not be another Desert Storm where exposed Iraqi troops are routed in the open desert, overwhelmed by American airpower. This war will be waged in Baghdad, in Tikrit, and in other cities. It will be waged from house to house and palace to palace, from street to street and school to school and hospital to hospital. We will certainly kill many Iraqis, and how many of our own will be killed? And will we stay the course once the body bags start coming back to Dover? Will Americans stand up and say, ``More''? I think not. Then there are the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians civilians already brutalized by the last 12 years--who will become casualties in this war. America has never been an aggressor nation unless attacked, as we were at Pearl Harbor and on September 11, or our interests and our allies were attacked. We have never initiated a major invasion against another nation-state, which leads to the question of whether a preemptive war is the morally right, legally right, or the politically right way for the United States to proceed. Lastly, there is the immensely complicated question of the Iraqi nation Saddam Hussein now has and what will happen if he is overthrown. Have we really thought out our options here? Have we taken into account the deep tribal factionalism and divisions, the bitter and often bloody rivalries among the Shia majority, the ruling Sunni minority, and the Kurds, that lie at the very root of Iraq? Will we protect the Kurds from possible genocide? How long will we stay to secure a new government? And who would replace Saddam Hussein? Let's be realistic. A democracy is not likely to emerge. One must look closely at the history of Iraq to draw such a conclusion, and I have. Madam President, I would like to quote from the recently published book, ``The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein'' by Sandra Mackey. She writes: When [Saddam Hussein] finally loses his grip on power either politically or physically, he will leave Iraq much as it was when the British created it--torn by tribalism and uncertain in its identity. It is this Iraq that threatens to inflict its communal grievances, its decades of non-cooperation, and its festering suspicions and entrenched hatreds on the Persian Gulf, the lifeline of our global economy. In light of such conditions, is the United States ready to be an occupational force? It could take many years for the seeds of a stable pluralist society to flourish in Iraq. Are we really ready to spend a generation there? Given what is at stake here--American lives, American prestige, and America's respect for the rule of law--we find ourselves at a critical crossroad. Again, according to Sandra Mackey: . . . the time is fast approaching when the United States, for a series of perilous reasons, will be forced to look beyond Hussein to Iraq itself. That is when all Americans will pay the price for what has been a long night of ignorance about the land between the rivers. In closing, I am very happy to see that President Bush will now seek congressional approval regarding military action. So this debate has just begun. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to ensure we not only ask the questions but see that the answers are moral, see that they are legal, see that they are befitting the greatest democracy on Earth, and see whether they are worth, for the first time, the United States of America making a unilateral attack on another nation-state. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Hutchison in introducing legislation that will save children's lives by expanding the existing AMBER Alert program nationwide. AMBER Alerts are official bulletins broadcast over the airwaves to enlist the public's help in tracking down abducted children facing imminent danger from their kidnappers. The power of the AMBER alert can be seen in the recent kidnapping of Tamara Brooks and Jacqueline Marris. On August 1, 2002, twenty-four hours after the State of California launched its statewide AMBER Alert program, Tamara Brooks, 16, and Jacqueline Marris, 17, were abducted from their vehicles at gunpoint in Lancaster, CA. Shortly thereafter, the California Highway Patrol issued an AMBER Alert on the girls disappearance. Within the next few hours, concerned members of the community called into CHP hotlines, delivering a flurry of crucial tips that helped locate the suspect. A driver on state Highway 178 spotted the abductor's stolen white bronco in Walker Pass, approximately 70 miles east of Bakersfield. Two hours later, a CalTrans worker spotted the suspect on Highway 178, and, A Kern County animal control officer spotted the Bronco on a local dirt road. Based on these tips, sheriff's deputies located the girls and their abductor, Roy Ratliff, in a vehicle in a dry riverbed, just 12 hours after the abduction. Ratliff was killed during an exchange of gunfire with sheriff's deputies, and the girls were returned home safely. The AMBER Alert system and the effective work of the Kern County Sheriff's Department may be the only reasons those girls are alive today. Children abducted in States without an AMBER Alert system, however, may not have been so fortunate. That is why we are introducing this legislation, to spur the development of State and local AMBER plans across the country so we can increase the chances that children abducted by strangers can be returned home safely. Each year, more than 58,000 children in the United States are abducted by non-family members, often in connection with another crime. In the most dangerous type of child abduction, stranger abduction, fully 40 percent of children are murdered. Speed is crucial to any effective law enforcement response to these most deadly cases. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, 74 percent of children who were abducted, and later found murdered, were killed within three hours of being taken. AMBER Alerts are a proven weapon in the fight against stranger abductions, especially in those cases where an abducted child is facing an imminent threat of harm. The program is named after nine-year-old Amber Hagerman who was kidnapped and murdered in Arlington, TX in 1996. The power of the AMBER alert system is that an alert can be issued within minutes of an abduction, disseminating key information of the crime to the community at large. Nationally, since 1996, the AMBER Alert has been credited with the safe return of 29 children to their families, including one case in which an abductor reportedly released the child after hearing the alert himself. These are 29 families who didn't have to suffer the pain of losing a loved one. Twenty-nine families who didn't have to bury a child. Since the State of California first adopted AMBER alerts a month ago, the State has issued 13 AMBER alerts. Each of the AMBER Alerts concluded with the missing child being united with their families. Eight of these alerts involved stranger abductions. Four involved family members, and one case is considered a false alarm. I would like to describe two of these cases: the rescue of four-year- old Jessica Cortez from Los Angeles and 10-year-old Nichole Timmons from Riverside. Jessica disappeared from Echo Park in Los Angeles on August 11, 2002. But when Jessica's abductor took her to a clinic for medical care, receptionist Denise Leon recognized Jessica from the AMBER Alert and notified law enforcement. Without the publicity generated by the alert, Jessica could have been lost to her parents forever. Nichole Timmons was kidnapped from her Riverside home on August 20. In Nichole's case, an Alert was issued not just in California, but in Nevada as well. A tribal police officer in Nevada spotted the truck of Nichole's abductor and stopped him within 24 hours of the abduction. He was found with duct tape and a metal pipe. The AMBER Alert enabled Nichole to return home safely to her parents. The legislation we are introducing today is simple, yet very important. First, it would establish a national coordinator for AMBER Alerts in the Department of Justice to expand the network of AMBER Alert systems and to coordinate the issuance of region-wide AMBER Alerts. We need regional coordination of AMBER Alert because, as we saw in the case of Nichole Timmons, abductors of children may cross State lines as they flee crime scenes. Second, the bill would establish grant programs in the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation to provide for the development of AMBER Alert systems, electronic message boards, and training and education programs in states that do not have AMBER Alerts. To date, AMBER Alert systems exist in only 15 States and 32 local and regional jurisdictions. This bill would help the expansion of AMBER Alerts to new jurisdictions. Third, the bill directs the Department of Justice to establish minimum standards for the coordination of AMBER alerts between jurisdictions. Minimum standards are needed because many of the existing AMBER plans have slightly different standards for an AMBER Alert, such as when to issue an alert. Without a common standard, sharing AMBER Alerts between states will be difficult. I would also like to stress what the bill does not do. It is the specific intent of this bill not to interfere with the operation of the 50 State and local AMBER plans that are working so well. Participation in regional AMBER plans is only voluntary, and any plan that wishes to go it alone may still do so. The bill also does not change the very strict criteria of the AMBER Alert. AMBER Alerts are successful because they are issued rarely, and only when strict criteria are met. A typical AMBER Alert is only issued when a law enforcement agency confirms that a stranger abduction has occurred, the child is in imminent danger, and there is information available that, if disseminated to the public could assist in the safe recovery of the child. The effectiveness of the system depends on the continued judicious use of the alert so that the public does not grow to ignore the warnings. This bill is carefully designed to preserve the Alert's ongoing effectiveness. In sum, through this legislation, we can extend to every corner of the nation a network of AMBER Alerts that will protect our children. If we can set up a program that will increase the odds that an abducted child can return to his or her family safely, then I believe the program will be well worth it. We know the AMBER Alert system works. We know that every community in America should have access to it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Hutchison in introducing legislation that will save children's lives by expanding the existing AMBER Alert program nationwide. AMBER Alerts are official bulletins broadcast over the airwaves to enlist the public's help in tracking down abducted children facing imminent danger from their kidnappers. The power of the AMBER alert can be seen in the recent kidnapping of Tamara Brooks and Jacqueline Marris. On August 1, 2002, twenty-four hours after the State of California launched its statewide AMBER Alert program, Tamara Brooks, 16, and Jacqueline Marris, 17, were abducted from their vehicles at gunpoint in Lancaster, CA. Shortly thereafter, the California Highway Patrol issued an AMBER Alert on the girls disappearance. Within the next few hours, concerned members of the community called into CHP hotlines, delivering a flurry of crucial tips that helped locate the suspect. A driver on state Highway 178 spotted the abductor's stolen white bronco in Walker Pass, approximately 70 miles east of Bakersfield. Two hours later, a CalTrans worker spotted the suspect on Highway 178, and, A Kern County animal control officer spotted the Bronco on a local dirt road. Based on these tips, sheriff's deputies located the girls and their abductor, Roy Ratliff, in a vehicle in a dry riverbed, just 12 hours after the abduction. Ratliff was killed during an exchange of gunfire with sheriff's deputies, and the girls were returned home safely. The AMBER Alert system and the effective work of the Kern County Sheriff's Department may be the only reasons those girls are alive today. Children abducted in States without an AMBER Alert system, however, may not have been so fortunate. That is why we are introducing this legislation, to spur the development of State and local AMBER plans across the country so we can increase the chances that children abducted by strangers can be returned home safely. Each year, more than 58,000 children in the United States are abducted by non-family members, often in connection with another crime. In the most dangerous type of child abduction, stranger abduction, fully 40 percent of children are murdered. Speed is crucial to any effective law enforcement response to these most deadly cases. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, 74 percent of children who were abducted, and later found murdered, were killed within three hours of being taken. AMBER Alerts are a proven weapon in the fight against stranger abductions, especially in those cases where an abducted child is facing an imminent threat of harm. The program is named after nine-year-old Amber Hagerman who was kidnapped and murdered in Arlington, TX in 1996. The power of the AMBER alert system is that an alert can be issued within minutes of an abduction, disseminating key information of the crime to the community at large. Nationally, since 1996, the AMBER Alert has been credited with the safe return of 29 children to their families, including one case in which an abductor reportedly released the child after hearing the alert himself. These are 29 families who didn't have to suffer the pain of losing a loved one. Twenty-nine families who didn't have to bury a child. Since the State of California first adopted AMBER alerts a month ago, the State has issued 13 AMBER alerts. Each of the AMBER Alerts concluded with the missing child being united with their families. Eight of these alerts involved stranger abductions. Four involved family members, and one case is considered a false alarm. I would like to describe two of these cases: the rescue of four-year- old Jessica Cortez from Los Angeles and 10-year-old Nichole Timmons from Riverside. Jessica disappeared from Echo Park in Los Angeles on August 11, 2002. But when Jessica's abductor took her to a clinic for medical care, receptionist Denise Leon recognized Jessica from the AMBER Alert and notified law enforcement. Without the publicity generated by the alert, Jessica could have been lost to her parents forever. Nichole Timmons was kidnapped from her Riverside home on August 20. In Nichole's case, an Alert was issued not just in California, but in Nevada as well. A tribal police officer in Nevada spotted the truck of Nichole's abductor and stopped him within 24 hours of the abduction. He was found with duct tape and a metal pipe. The AMBER Alert enabled Nichole to return home safely to her parents. The legislation we are introducing today is simple, yet very important. First, it would establish a national coordinator for AMBER Alerts in the Department of Justice to expand the network of AMBER Alert systems and to coordinate the issuance of region-wide AMBER Alerts. We need regional coordination of AMBER Alert because, as we saw in the case of Nichole Timmons, abductors of children may cross State lines as they flee crime scenes. Second, the bill would establish grant programs in the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation to provide for the development of AMBER Alert systems, electronic message boards, and training and education programs in states that do not have AMBER Alerts. To date, AMBER Alert systems exist in only 15 States and 32 local and regional jurisdictions. This bill would help the expansion of AMBER Alerts to new jurisdictions. Third, the bill directs the Department of Justice to establish minimum standards for the coordination of AMBER alerts between jurisdictions. Minimum standards are needed because many of the existing AMBER plans have slightly different standards for an AMBER Alert, such as when to issue an alert. Without a common standard, sharing AMBER Alerts between states will be difficult. I would also like to stress what the bill does not do. It is the specific intent of this bill not to interfere with the operation of the 50 State and local AMBER plans that are working so well. Participation in regional AMBER plans is only voluntary, and any plan that wishes to go it alone may still do so. The bill also does not change the very strict criteria of the AMBER Alert. AMBER Alerts are successful because they are issued rarely, and only when strict criteria are met. A typical AMBER Alert is only issued when a law enforcement agency confirms that a stranger abduction has occurred, the child is in imminent danger, and there is information available that, if disseminated to the public could assist in the safe recovery of the child. The effectiveness of the system depends on the continued judicious use of the alert so that the public does not grow to ignore the warnings. This bill is carefully designed to preserve the Alert's ongoing effectiveness. In sum, through this legislation, we can extend to every corner of the nation a network of AMBER Alerts that will protect our children. If we can set up a program that will increase the odds that an abducted child can return to his or her family safely, then I believe the program will be well worth it. We know the AMBER Alert system works. We know that every community in America should have access to it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002 to protect against terrorist attacks on or through our Nation's seaports. I would like to thank Senators Kyl, Hutchison, and Snowe for joining me in sponsoring this bill. Currently, our seaports are the gaping hole in our Nation's defense against terrorism. Of the over 18 million shipping containers that enter our ports each year, 6 million come from overseas. However, only 1 or 2 percent of these containers are inspected, and inspections almost invariably occur after the containers arrive in the United States. The problem is that single container could contain 60,000 pounds of explosives, 10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma city, and a single container ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time. Containers could easily be exploited to detonate a bomb that would destroy a bridge, seaport, or other critical infrastructure, causing mass destruction and killing thousands. Worse, a suitcase-sized nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb'' could also be installed in a container and shipped to the United States. The odds that the container would never be inspected. And, even if the container was inspected, it would be too late. The weapon would already be in the United States--most likely near a major population center. There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists are seeking to exploit vulnerabilities at our seaports right now. For example, a recent article in the Bangkok Post notes that ``Al- Qaeda is among international terrorist organisations responsible for an increase in piracy against ships carrying radioactive materials through the Malacca Straits. . . . The terrorist groups' main aims were to obtain substances such as uranium and plutonium oxide for use in so- called dirty bombs.'' In addition, any attack on or through a seaport could have devastating economic consequences. Every year U.S. ports handle over 800 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $600 billion. Excluding trade with Mexico and Canada, America's ports handle 95 percent of U.S. trade. Two of the busiest ports in the world are in my home State of California: Los Angeles/Long Beach and at Oakland. We cannot inspect every container coming into the United States, but we can do a better job devoting our attention to cargo that could put our national security at risk. The legislation we introduce today will ensure that we devote the limited resources we do have to inspect cargo in the most efficient and effective manner. It will allow us to reduce the size of the haystack to make it easier to find the needle. Since September 11th, the Federal Government has taken steps to secure our airports and our borders, however, we still have not adopted a blueprint for helping protect America's 361 seaports. While the Senate passed S. 1214, a bill written by Senator Hollings last December, and the House has also passed a port security bill, conference negotiations are still ongoing. I hope the conferees will adopt the provisions in this bill before they complete their work in conference because I believe that this bill is the only legislation that thoroughly addresses the issue of port security from the point cargo is loaded in a foreign country to its arrival on land in the United States. We have known for a long time that America's ports needed an extensive security strategy and upgrade. In the fall of 2000, a comprehensive report was issued by the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports. I testified before the commission and I believe its report makes a number of sensible suggestions on how we can improve security and fight crime at seaports. Before the September 11 terrorist attacks, S. 1214 was drafted to try to implement many of the commission's recommendations. Before the bill passed the Senate in December 2001, the sponsors made some additional changes to help prevent a terrorist attack. However, I believe that there is much more Congress can do to prevent terrorists from launching a terrorist attack through our seaports. The legislation I am introducing today will complement the Hollings bill and the seaport security legislation passed by the House. Together, I believe the provisions in these three bills will erect a formidable security barrier at our seaports. I believe that Al Qaeda is planning to attack the United States again soon and that it may well try to do so through a U.S. seaport. Indeed, the Al Qaeda training manual specifically mentions seaports as a point of vulnerability in our security. In addition, we know that Al Qaeda has succeeded in attacking American interests at and through seaports in the past. Let me mention some examples. In June, the FBI issued a warning for Americans to be on the lookout for suspicious people wanting training in scuba diving or trying to rent underwater gear. Law enforcement officials fear that Al Qaeda operatives could try to blow up ships at anchor or other waterfront targets. In May the FBI received reports that Al Qaeda terrorists may be making their way toward Southern California from a Middle Eastern port via merchant ships. Catalina Island--22 miles off the coast of Los Angles, was mentioned as a possible destination for about 40 Al Qaeda terrorists. In October 2001, Italian authorities found an Egyptian man suspected for having ties to Al Qaeda in a container bound for Canada. He had false identifications, maps of airports, a computer, a satellite phones, cameras, and plenty of cash on hand. In October 2000, Al Qaeda operatives successfully carried out a deadly bombing attack against the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Yemen. In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Evidence suggests that the explosives the terrorists used were shipped to them by sea. And the investigation of the embassy bombings concluded that Bin Laden has close financial tries to various shipping companies. I believe that this legislation would go far to make the United States less vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The main provisions will: 1. Establish a risk profiling plan for the Customs Service to focus their limited inspection capabilities on high-risk cargo and containers, and 2. Push U.S. security scrutiny beyond our Nation's borders to monitor and inspect cargo and containers before they arrive near America's shores. These provisions complement and extend a strategy Customs Commissioner Robert C. Bonner is already in the process of implementing. To prevent a weapon of mass destruction from getting to the U.S. in the first place, Customs has entered into formal agreements with a handful of foreign governments to station U.S. inspectors at ports overseas to profile high risk cargo and target suspicious shipments for inspection. The Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act will also: Designate an official at each U.S. port as the primary authority responsible for security. This will enable all parties involved in business at a port to understand who has final say on all security matters. Require the FBI to collect and make available data relating to crime at and affecting seaports. With more data, law enforcement agencies will be able to better identify patterns and weaknesses at particular ports. Require ports to provide space to Customs so that the agency is able to use its non-intrusive inspection technology. In many cases, Customs has to keep this technology outside the port and bring it in every day, which prevents some of the best inspection technology, which is not portable, from being used. Give Customs responsibility of licensing and overseeing regulated intermediaries in the international trade process, these intermediaries handle over 80 percent of all cargo in international trade. Currently, the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission oversees most of these intermediaries, but Customs will have more resources to oversee this regulation. Require shippers bound for U.S. ports to transmit their cargo manifests with more detailed information at least 24 hours prior to departing from a foreign port. Impose steep monetary sanctions for failure to comply with information filing requirements, including filing incorrect information, the current penalty is only a maximum of $1000 or $5000, depending on the offense. The Seaport Commission found that about half of the information on ship manifests was inaccurate. Require all port employees to have biometric smart identification cards. Restrict private vehicle access to ports. Prohibit guns and explosives at ports, except when authorized. Mandate that radiation detection pagers be issued to each inspector. Requires the Transportation Security Administration to set standards to ensure each port has a secure port perimeter, secure parking facilities, controlled points of access into the port, sufficient lighting, buildings with secure doors and windows and an alarm. Require all ports to keep sensitive information on the port secure and protected. Such information would include, but not be limited to maps, blueprints, and information on the Internet. Require the use of high security seals on all containers coming into the U.S. Require that each container to be transported through U.S. ports receive a universal transaction number that could be used to track container movement from origin to destination. Require shippers to have similar universal numbers. Require all empty containers destined for U.S. ports to be secured. Fund pilot programs to develop high-tech seals and sensors, including those that would provide real-time evidence of container tampering to a monitor at a terminal. I believe that Congress should act quickly on this legislation. This bill could very well prevent the arrival or detonation of a nuclear ``suitcase bomb'' or radiological ``dirty bomb'' at a U.S. seaport-an attack that could bring U.S. seaborne commerce to a grinding halt, leaving our economy and national security in shambles. In closing, I want to thank staff at the Customs Service, Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, and various ports for their helpful comments on this legislation. I also want to thank a ``working group'' of experts I assembled for their suggestions regarding the bill. These experts included former government officials, industry executives, and security consultants. I also want to thank Senator Hollings and the other members of the Commerce Committee for the work they have done on the port security issue. I have spoken to Senator Hollings about the bill I am introducing today, and my staff is working with his staff and with the staff of other conferees to come up with comprehensive seaport security legislation. I hope that the legislation ultimately adopted by the conference includes the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002. I would urge the conferees to work quickly to draft a final bill that we can send to the President's desk before September 11. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002 to protect against terrorist attacks on or through our Nation's seaports. I would like to thank Senators Kyl, Hutchison, and Snowe for joining me in sponsoring this bill. Currently, our seaports are the gaping hole in our Nation's defense against terrorism. Of the over 18 million shipping containers that enter our ports each year, 6 million come from overseas. However, only 1 or 2 percent of these containers are inspected, and inspections almost invariably occur after the containers arrive in the United States. The problem is that single container could contain 60,000 pounds of explosives, 10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma city, and a single container ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time. Containers could easily be exploited to detonate a bomb that would destroy a bridge, seaport, or other critical infrastructure, causing mass destruction and killing thousands. Worse, a suitcase-sized nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb'' could also be installed in a container and shipped to the United States. The odds that the container would never be inspected. And, even if the container was inspected, it would be too late. The weapon would already be in the United States--most likely near a major population center. There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists are seeking to exploit vulnerabilities at our seaports right now. For example, a recent article in the Bangkok Post notes that ``Al- Qaeda is among international terrorist organisations responsible for an increase in piracy against ships carrying radioactive materials through the Malacca Straits. . . . The terrorist groups' main aims were to obtain substances such as uranium and plutonium oxide for use in so- called dirty bombs.'' In addition, any attack on or through a seaport could have devastating economic consequences. Every year U.S. ports handle over 800 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $600 billion. Excluding trade with Mexico and Canada, America's ports handle 95 percent of U.S. trade. Two of the busiest ports in the world are in my home State of California: Los Angeles/Long Beach and at Oakland. We cannot inspect every container coming into the United States, but we can do a better job devoting our attention to cargo that could put our national security at risk. The legislation we introduce today will ensure that we devote the limited resources we do have to inspect cargo in the most efficient and effective manner. It will allow us to reduce the size of the haystack to make it easier to find the needle. Since September 11th, the Federal Government has taken steps to secure our airports and our borders, however, we still have not adopted a blueprint for helping protect America's 361 seaports. While the Senate passed S. 1214, a bill written by Senator Hollings last December, and the House has also passed a port security bill, conference negotiations are still ongoing. I hope the conferees will adopt the provisions in this bill before they complete their work in conference because I believe that this bill is the only legislation that thoroughly addresses the issue of port security from the point cargo is loaded in a foreign country to its arrival on land in the United States. We have known for a long time that America's ports needed an extensive security strategy and upgrade. In the fall of 2000, a comprehensive report was issued by the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports. I testified before the commission and I believe its report makes a number of sensible suggestions on how we can improve security and fight crime at seaports. Before the September 11 terrorist attacks, S. 1214 was drafted to try to implement many of the commission's recommendations. Before the bill passed the Senate in December 2001, the sponsors made some additional changes to help prevent a terrorist attack. However, I believe that there is much more Congress can do to prevent terrorists from launching a terrorist attack through our seaports. The legislation I am introducing today will complement the Hollings bill and the seaport security legislation passed by the House. Together, I believe the provisions in these three bills will erect a formidable security barrier at our seaports. I believe that Al Qaeda is planning to attack the United States again soon and that it may well try to do so through a U.S. seaport. Indeed, the Al Qaeda training manual specifically mentions seaports as a point of vulnerability in our security. In addition, we know that Al Qaeda has succeeded in attacking American interests at and through seaports in the past. Let me mention some examples. In June, the FBI issued a warning for Americans to be on the lookout for suspicious people wanting training in scuba diving or trying to rent underwater gear. Law enforcement officials fear that Al Qaeda operatives could try to blow up ships at anchor or other waterfront targets. In May the FBI received reports that Al Qaeda terrorists may be making their way toward Southern California from a Middle Eastern port via merchant ships. Catalina Island--22 miles off the coast of Los Angles, was mentioned as a possible destination for about 40 Al Qaeda terrorists. In October 2001, Italian authorities found an Egyptian man suspected for having ties to Al Qaeda in a container bound for Canada. He had false identifications, maps of airports, a computer, a satellite phones, cameras, and plenty of cash on hand. In October 2000, Al Qaeda operatives successfully carried out a deadly bombing attack against the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Yemen. In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Evidence suggests that the explosives the terrorists used were shipped to them by sea. And the investigation of the embassy bombings concluded that Bin Laden has close financial tries to various shipping companies. I believe that this legislation would go far to make the United States less vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The main provisions will: 1. Establish a risk profiling plan for the Customs Service to focus their limited inspection capabilities on high-risk cargo and containers, and 2. Push U.S. security scrutiny beyond our Nation's borders to monitor and inspect cargo and containers before they arrive near America's shores. These provisions complement and extend a strategy Customs Commissioner Robert C. Bonner is already in the process of implementing. To prevent a weapon of mass destruction from getting to the U.S. in the first place, Customs has entered into formal agreements with a handful of foreign governments to station U.S. inspectors at ports overseas to profile high risk cargo and target suspicious shipments for inspection. The Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act will also: Designate an official at each U.S. port as the primary authority responsible for security. This will enable all parties involved in business at a port to understand who has final say on all security matters. Require the FBI to collect and make available data relating to crime at and affecting seaports. With more data, law enforcement agencies will be able to better identify patterns and weaknesses at particular ports. Require ports to provide space to Customs so that the agency is able to use its non-intrusive inspection technology. In many cases, Customs has to keep this technology outside the port and bring it in every day, which prevents some of the best inspection technology, which is not portable, from being used. Give Customs responsibility of licensing and overseeing regulated intermediaries in the international trade process, these intermediaries handle over 80 percent of all cargo in international trade. Currently, the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission oversees most of these intermediaries, but Customs will have more resources to oversee this regulation. Require shippers bound for U.S. ports to transmit their cargo manifests with more detailed information at least 24 hours prior to departing from a foreign port. Impose steep monetary sanctions for failure to comply with information filing requirements, including filing incorrect information, the current penalty is only a maximum of $1000 or $5000, depending on the offense. The Seaport Commission found that about half of the information on ship manifests was inaccurate. Require all port employees to have biometric smart identification cards. Restrict private vehicle access to ports. Prohibit guns and explosives at ports, except when authorized. Mandate that radiation detection pagers be issued to each inspector. Requires the Transportation Security Administration to set standards to ensure each port has a secure port perimeter, secure parking facilities, controlled points of access into the port, sufficient lighting, buildings with secure doors and windows and an alarm. Require all ports to keep sensitive information on the port secure and protected. Such information would include, but not be limited to maps, blueprints, and information on the Internet. Require the use of high security seals on all containers coming into the U.S. Require that each container to be transported through U.S. ports receive a universal transaction number that could be used to track container movement from origin to destination. Require shippers to have similar universal numbers. Require all empty containers destined for U.S. ports to be secured. Fund pilot programs to develop high-tech seals and sensors, including those that would provide real-time evidence of container tampering to a monitor at a terminal. I believe that Congress should act quickly on this legislation. This bill could very well prevent the arrival or detonation of a nuclear ``suitcase bomb'' or radiological ``dirty bomb'' at a U.S. seaport-an attack that could bring U.S. seaborne commerce to a grinding halt, leaving our economy and national security in shambles. In closing, I want to thank staff at the Customs Service, Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, and various ports for their helpful comments on this legislation. I also want to thank a ``working group'' of experts I assembled for their suggestions regarding the bill. These experts included former government officials, industry executives, and security consultants. I also want to thank Senator Hollings and the other members of the Commerce Committee for the work they have done on the port security issue. I have spoken to Senator Hollings about the bill I am introducing today, and my staff is working with his staff and with the staff of other conferees to come up with comprehensive seaport security legislation. I hope that the legislation ultimately adopted by the conference includes the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002. I would urge the conferees to work quickly to draft a final bill that we can send to the President's desk before September 11. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation today to transfer 27 acres of land from the Stanislaus National Forest to the Clovis Unified School District. This bill allows the school district to continue operating the California Five Mile Regional Learning Center and, more importantly, raise the necessary funds to renovate the facilities. Since 1989, Clovis Unified School District has leased the Five Mile Regional Learning Center from the Forest Service to offer programs to students living in the Central Valley. And each year, thousands of eager children come to the Center to take classes that emphasize natural resource conservation. During this past academic year, for instance, more than 14,000 students benefitted from classes ranging from forest management to aviary studies to team building. In addition to classes, students have the option of attending summer basketball camps offered in the Center's gymnasium and participating in individual activities given on the Center's adjacent 93 acres. To date, the district has invested $14 million of local funds to provide these opportunities. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the Regional Learning Center has fallen into a state of disrepair. The buildings that occupy the 27 acres are over 40 years old, but have never undergone major renovations to modernize and improve them. As a result, the Center has a laundry list of items in need of repair: from cracked asphalt and leaky roofs to unreliable electrical wiring. And while Clovis Unified School District officials have done a fine job of operating the Center and are willing to invest in renovations, the Forest Service can not permit the district to spend local funds to renovate these federally owned buildings. This bill enables the Forest Service to convey the acreage that the buildings occupy to the school district allowing the district to make the necessary repairs. Clovis Unified has already committed to investing $5 million over 5 years to make the renovations, in addition to the district's $1.2 million of annual contributions spent on routine maintenance and operating costs. These investments will be used to expand and enhance the Center's environmental educational curriculum. I believe that given the budget constraints that schools nationwide are facing that this commitment speaks to the quality of these programs and to the need to keep the Center in operation. The Forest Service has already acknowledged that this transfer would be in the best interest of both the Forest Service and the general public. At the Forest Service's request, reversionary language was added to this bill to ensure that the gederal government would retain ownership of the land should the school district decide to no longer operate the facilities. Without this important legislation, in a few years time, the California Five Mile Regional Learning Center will be uninhabitable and another educational resource that benefits our children will close its doors. I believe that this bill is the perfect example of what can happen when local, state, and federal governments work together to get something done. It is this type of partnership that Congress should support in our efforts to diversify and improve educational opportunities for students and encourage multi-use activities on federal land. In this case, I believe everyone wins and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act, a bill to increase state and local access to security information that could save American lives. The House has already passed similar legislation bill sponsored by Representatives Harman and Chambliss, and it is my understanding that the Administration supports this legislation as well. The bill I introduce today will not solve our intelligence problems-- we have a long road ahead of us before we can accomplish that. But this legislation will send a clear signal to our federal agencies that information gathered at the federal level must be shared with states and localities if we are to triumph in the battle against terrorism. State and local law enforcement are first-line defenders of our homeland security. Too often, though, state and local officials do not receive information necessary for them to protect us. If, for instance, there were a terrorist threat against the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, we would want a cooperative effort between the Federal government and local officials. This bill would: Direct the President to establish procedures for federal agencies to share homeland security information with state and local officials, and for all government officials to be able to communicate with each other. Local officials should quickly have access to relevant intelligence necessary to prevent or respond to attacks in their communities. Direct the President to address concerns about too much dissemination of classified or sensitive information, by setting procedures to protect this material. This could include requiring background checks of local officials who seek access to classified information, or perhaps even non disclosure agreements so that secret information stays secret. Direct the President to ensure that our current information sharing systems and computers are capable of sharing relevant homeland security information with each other and with state and local systems. Mr. President, we can improve information sharing without re- inventing the wheel. The legislation applies technology already used to share information with our NATO allies and with Interpol. The information can be shared through existing networks, such as the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, the Regional Information Sharing Systems, and the Terrorist Threat Warning System. These systems already reach law enforcement offices throughout America. Better information sharing will result in better homeland security. As a Congress, we are already working on making intelligence gathering and dissemination work better within the federal government. We must not forget to improve communications with state and local law enforcement as well. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I hope that we can pass it quickly in September. It is non-controversial, and would help send a clear signal that information gathering and dissemination may be our best defense against terror.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Appropriations Bill, I wanted to discuss briefly the current efforts at the Defense Department to design, install and implement an enterprise architecture to perform financial activities at the Department. This has been a major undertaking, and the ultimate goal is to have at the Department a modern, state-of-the-art, integrated system that will perform business processes and financial activities in numerous fields, including logistics, health care, accounting, finance, and personnel. The financial management challenges at the Department are no secret to the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Last year, Congress provided the Department $100 million to start the financial management reform initiative, and this year, the Department requested more than $96 million to continue the reform program. According to the Department, financial management reform would reduce the approximately 967 stand-alone systems currently generating financial data. In the current fiscal year, we have seen signs of progress. On April 9, the Department selected International Business Machines to develop the financial management enterprise architecture. IBM, along with several leading information technology firms, and under the direction of the Department's Financial Management Modernization Program Office, will now design a blueprint for future Department investments in business management information technology. This blueprint is expected to be completed as early as March 2003. While this is good news, the Committee report noted that this initiative has gotten off to a slow start. For example, a significant portion of the $100 million provided last year was to go for systems improvements, and to undertake various pilot projects under these improved systems at the service branch level. However, despite the existence of these funds for these projects and with project teams already selected, they have not moved forward and the funds have not been spent. With the IBM team engaged in architecture design, the current and next fiscal year would seem an appropriate opportunity to make the systems improvements, and undertake the various pilot projects that have already been funded. These pilots could enable the Department to test and analyze the nuts and bolts of integrated financial management processes. With problems already identified, solution sets, and ``best practices'' can be tested via the pilots and under the improved systems. This is consistent with one of the observations of the General Accounting Office, which noted, ``it is critical to establish interim measures to both track performance against the department's overall transformation goals and facilitate near-term successes...'' Also, at a recent conference here on Capitol Hill on Defense financial management modernization, a representative of IBM agreed that it was important to go forward on the pilot programs, stating that they were ``vital'' to the improvement of the business. I see the distinguished chair and ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee on the floor, and would like to ask them if they agree with me that the Defense Department should utilize the funds previously provided by Congress to undertake needed systems improvements and pilot projects for financial modernization.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President: It is widely recognized that the Coast Guard is the nation's principal defense against illicit drug shipping and must become a barrier to terrorist attacks in which explosives or weapons of mass destruction may be headed for an American city on a ship or fast boat. I join with the distinguished Chair of the Defense Subcommittee, in commending the Senator from Alaska for his leadership role in establishing the HITRON mission in the United States Coast Guard. The current fleet of eight MH-68A helicopters is stationed in Jacksonville, Florida and is active in the Caribbean. The fleet was temporarily deployed at the U.S. Coast Guard Station in San Diego for a demonstration. It was a complete success and as a result, Congressman Bob Filner recently wrote the Commandant urging that he extend the current lease of eight or more MH-68A helicopters until a permanent DeepWater replacement is selected. Both Congressman Filner and I agree there is a critical requirement for off shore drug interdiction along the Mexican-Southern California coastline. Further, these helicopters can add anti-terrorist protection for the Port of San Diego. Therefore, based on the assumption the Coast Guard has the legal authority to enter this lease, I urge my colleagues to support extension of 5-year lease for eight MH-68 helicopters.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for their comments and for their leadership on this very critical reform effort at the Department of Defense. rapid response sensor networking for multiple applications

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act, a bill to increase state and local access to security information that could save American lives. The House has already passed similar legislation bill sponsored by Representatives Harman and Chambliss, and it is my understanding that the Administration supports this legislation as well. The bill I introduce today will not solve our intelligence problems-- we have a long road ahead of us before we can accomplish that. But this legislation will send a clear signal to our federal agencies that information gathered at the federal level must be shared with states and localities if we are to triumph in the battle against terrorism. State and local law enforcement are first-line defenders of our homeland security. Too often, though, state and local officials do not receive information necessary for them to protect us. If, for instance, there were a terrorist threat against the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, we would want a cooperative effort between the Federal government and local officials. This bill would: Direct the President to establish procedures for federal agencies to share homeland security information with state and local officials, and for all government officials to be able to communicate with each other. Local officials should quickly have access to relevant intelligence necessary to prevent or respond to attacks in their communities. Direct the President to address concerns about too much dissemination of classified or sensitive information, by setting procedures to protect this material. This could include requiring background checks of local officials who seek access to classified information, or perhaps even non disclosure agreements so that secret information stays secret. Direct the President to ensure that our current information sharing systems and computers are capable of sharing relevant homeland security information with each other and with state and local systems. Mr. President, we can improve information sharing without re- inventing the wheel. The legislation applies technology already used to share information with our NATO allies and with Interpol. The information can be shared through existing networks, such as the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, the Regional Information Sharing Systems, and the Terrorist Threat Warning System. These systems already reach law enforcement offices throughout America. Better information sharing will result in better homeland security. As a Congress, we are already working on making intelligence gathering and dissemination work better within the federal government. We must not forget to improve communications with state and local law enforcement as well. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I hope that we can pass it quickly in September. It is non-controversial, and would help send a clear signal that information gathering and dissemination may be our best defense against terror.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, just over four years ago, the U.S. Postal Service began issuing semipostal stamps to raise money for breast cancer research. The breast cancer research stamp is the first postal stamp in our Nation's history to raise funds for a special cause. Since its inception in the summer of 1998, the program has raised over $27.2 million for research. The stamp is just as strong today as it was 4 years ago when Congress passed legislation I introduced based on a creative idea of my constituent, Dr. Ernie Bodai, and the hard efforts of others, including Betsy Mullen of the Women's Information Network Against Breast Cancer and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. The price of a breast cancer research stamp recently increased to keep pace with the cost of first class mail, ensuring that breast cancer research will continue to reap the benefits of the stamp's success. It has also focused public awareness on a devastating disease and provided a symbol of hope and strength to breast cancer survivors, their loved ones, and others who care about eradicating breast cancer as a life-threatening disease. I am pleased to announce today that the concept of a semipostal breast cancer research stamp has now spread across international borders. The country of Italy recently has followed the United States lead and is issuing a semipostal stamp for breast cancer research. Breast cancer is not just an American problem, but it is also a global problem. Approximately 250,000 new cases of breast cancer are diagnosed annually in the European Union. Each year, in Italy alone, more than 30,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer and 11,000 die of this disease. Modeled after the U.S. version, the Italian stamp is priced above the value of a first class letter with proceeds dedicated to the battle against breast cancer. Converted into U.S. dollars, approximately 20 cents for each letter sent with the new semipostal will be used to fight breast cancer. In total, Italy expects to raise approximately $2.5 million dollars for breast cancer research, education, screening and treatment programs throughout the country. Italy's new semipostal stamp, which will be available through 2003, commemorates the 50th anniversary of the death of Queen Elena di Savoia, whose philanthropic efforts included funding the first cancer center in Italy. Approximately 12.5 million stamps will be produced. I am pleased that lessons we have learned from the launch of the U.S. breast cancer stamp are being applied in Italy. I would especially like to commend the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation for its efforts to make the Italian stamp the success that it is here in the United States. In the words of Nancy Macgregor, the Komen Foundation's International Director: ``Breast cancer knows no boundaries, and Italy is no exception.'' I wish Italy the same success with its semipostal that we continue to enjoy here in the United States. Working together and building on each other's successes, we increase our strength in the battle against breast cancer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation today to transfer 27 acres of land from the Stanislaus National Forest to the Clovis Unified School District. This bill allows the school district to continue operating the California Five Mile Regional Learning Center and, more importantly, raise the necessary funds to renovate the facilities. Since 1989, Clovis Unified School District has leased the Five Mile Regional Learning Center from the Forest Service to offer programs to students living in the Central Valley. And each year, thousands of eager children come to the Center to take classes that emphasize natural resource conservation. During this past academic year, for instance, more than 14,000 students benefitted from classes ranging from forest management to aviary studies to team building. In addition to classes, students have the option of attending summer basketball camps offered in the Center's gymnasium and participating in individual activities given on the Center's adjacent 93 acres. To date, the district has invested $14 million of local funds to provide these opportunities. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the Regional Learning Center has fallen into a state of disrepair. The buildings that occupy the 27 acres are over 40 years old, but have never undergone major renovations to modernize and improve them. As a result, the Center has a laundry list of items in need of repair: from cracked asphalt and leaky roofs to unreliable electrical wiring. And while Clovis Unified School District officials have done a fine job of operating the Center and are willing to invest in renovations, the Forest Service can not permit the district to spend local funds to renovate these federally owned buildings. This bill enables the Forest Service to convey the acreage that the buildings occupy to the school district allowing the district to make the necessary repairs. Clovis Unified has already committed to investing $5 million over 5 years to make the renovations, in addition to the district's $1.2 million of annual contributions spent on routine maintenance and operating costs. These investments will be used to expand and enhance the Center's environmental educational curriculum. I believe that given the budget constraints that schools nationwide are facing that this commitment speaks to the quality of these programs and to the need to keep the Center in operation. The Forest Service has already acknowledged that this transfer would be in the best interest of both the Forest Service and the general public. At the Forest Service's request, reversionary language was added to this bill to ensure that the gederal government would retain ownership of the land should the school district decide to no longer operate the facilities. Without this important legislation, in a few years time, the California Five Mile Regional Learning Center will be uninhabitable and another educational resource that benefits our children will close its doors. I believe that this bill is the perfect example of what can happen when local, state, and federal governments work together to get something done. It is this type of partnership that Congress should support in our efforts to diversify and improve educational opportunities for students and encourage multi-use activities on federal land. In this case, I believe everyone wins and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senators Graham and Smith to add a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program for low-income beneficiaries and those with high drug costs. The amendment offered today is built on consensus and compromise, and is the product of weeks of extensive discussion. I believe in its final form, this amendment strikes a balance between the Senate's proper exercise of fiscal responsibility and the need to expand and update the Medicare program to include some help with the high costs of prescription drugs for today's 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. I want to thank my good friend, Senator Lincoln Chafee, for his commitment to getting prescription drugs to those in our society who are the sickest and the poorest. I have been working with him since the end of June in developing a cost effective alternative that would get prescription drugs to the lowest income and the sickest in our society immediately. I believe that the Graham-Smith amendment we are debating today addresses my major concern which is to provide low-income individuals in our society with access to a full, prescription drug benefit at low cost. I am pleased that others in the Senate agree with me that at a minium we should provide a comprehensive benefit to those individuals in our communities who are making daily decisions about eating or paying rent and buying their necessary, life-saving prescription drugs. The prescription drug benefit created by this amendment includes three important components. First, this amendment creates a voluntary, low-income benefit so that seniors would no longer be forced to continue making decisions between food or medicine. Under this plan, beneficiaries would pay no premium, no annual fee, and no deductible. Their only cost would be a nominal copay of $2 for a generic drug and $5 for a brand name drug. I believe the assurance that over 18 million Medicare beneficiaries, 47 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries, with incomes below $17,720, 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, would have access to needed prescription drugs at a nominal cost is the most important component of this proposal. For California, this means that 1.8 million senior citizens and disabled Medicare beneficiaries, 49 percent, with incomes below $17,720 for an individual and $23,880 for a couple would have immediate access to all needed drugs. Second, this amendment would provide all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries with access to catastrophic coverage. For a simple cost of $25 a year for those with incomes above $17,720, every beneficiary would have the assurance that once out-of-pocket spending for prescription drugs exceeds $3,300, a copayment of $10 would provide them with access to full coverage at no additional cost to them. Beneficiaries with incomes below $17,720 would not be responsible for the $10 copay. Low-income individuals would receive this benefit at no cost. Third, this amendment provides the 14 million Medicare beneficiaries, 35 percent, making over $17,720 with access to discounts of about 25 percent on each prescription. For an annual fee of $25, these beneficiaries would have access to the federal negotiated rate and would receive a 5 percent government subsidy in addition on each prescription they purchase. In California, this means an additional 1.9 million senior citizens and disabled Medicare beneficiaries, 51 percent, who are not eligible for low-income assistance would benefit from discounts of 25-30 percent on each prescription. By providing coverage to low-income individuals and those with high drug bills, this proposal meets the most fundamental needs of our nation's senior citizens and disabled. Passing this amendment is timely. On a daily basis, my office hears from California's seniors about the financial constraints they face which often prohibits them from buying necessary medication. I recently heard from Helen Cecil, a senior citizen from Paramount, CA on this issue. She lives on a fixed monthly income of $1,000. Her rent is $421 a month, and she spends $150 a month on her prescriptions to treat high cholesterol, hypertension and arthritis. In total, Helen spends $1,800 annually on medication. She admits to having only one option: She must cut down on food in order to buy her medications. Under the Graham-Smith amendment, Helen would pay no monthly premium and no deductible. She would only pay $2 per prescription for generic drugs. Assuming she purchases generic drugs, her monthly bill of $150 for three medications to treat her chronic health conditions would drop to approximately $6. Helen saves about $142 monthly. This is money she can use to buy groceries. For the millions of Medicare beneficiaries that face the same predicament as Helen Cecil, I believe the government has a responsibility to see that they are not forced to choose between buying food and buying medications. Quite frankly, it is hard to think that in the richest nation on earth, we have allowed a situation to evolve where so many of our elderly must make such a choice. I am hopeful that the Senate won't fail our Nation's sickest, poorest and most frail. In the hopes of breaking the gridlock of this debate, and with the need to pass legislation that meets both the budgetary restrictions of these uncertain times and the needs of our nation's low-income seniors, I urge my colleagues to support the Graham-Smith amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 133 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy and myself, I rise today to submit a concurrent resolution. This resolution is aimed to deal with a great deal of the speculation we read about in the public press as to whether there is an intent of the administration for use of force against Iraq. We all know that use of force requires a specific statutory authorization or declaration of war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States. I believe the issue is not a question of whether or not Iraq is a rogue state. It is. It is also not a question of whether Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. He is. The question, however, is what is the best policy for the United States and how to address these issues, and if we are to use force, that we do so only after full debate and consideration of all of the options and with a united Government and with the specific statutory authorization of the Congress. Under the Constitution, only the Congress can declare war, and I offer this resolution because of the growing sense, both within the United States and abroad, that the Bush administration is poised to launch a major military offensive against the Nation of Iraq. Thus far, the administration has submitted no evidence of any Iraqi connection to 9/11 to this Congress, and the resolution authorizing the use of force against al-Qaida is specifically worded so that hard evidence of such a connection is needed to justify military action. Conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein is, indeed, harboring weapons of mass destruction, that he is providing shelter for al-Qaida terrorist cells, or that he is in any way linked to the attacks of September 11 would quickly galvanize support for military action. As of now, however, no such evidence has been substantiated. At this time, moreover, I know of no formal support for a full-scale military action from any other nation. I know of no formal grant to fly over or landing rights which would be granted by any nation in connection with any invasion plan. As far as I know at this point, the United States would be alone, unilaterally taking action. To take action without support from our allies or the United Nations would clearly identify the United States as an aggressor and may well prompt a series of potentially catastrophic actions. Both Turkey and Jordan, two of our most loyal and longstanding allies in the region, have been open about their concern about United States unilateral action at this time, making clear their opposition. They have also pinpointed that the present crisis between the Israelis and the Palestinians should be the world's primary focus in the Middle East. Until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is stabilized, until more than a semblance of security and stability has returned to Israel and Palestine, a massive invasion against Iraq could expose the Israeli people to possible missile strikes from Baghdad. We should also remain focused and stay the course in our war on terror. The government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan is increasingly unstable. There are serious questions and concerns about security throughout Afghanistan. The warlords are restless and asserting power, and previously dissipated Taliban elements are returning to Afghanistan. The situation remains volatile. The stabilization of Afghanistan, its successful transition to a democratic government, and its restoration of its war-torn economy should remain a top priority for all of us. I believe it would be a tragic mistake if the United States turns its attention and effort from Afghanistan before the new Afghan Government is stabilized and security in the country is improved. I, for one, strongly believe that Iraq should promptly agree to the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors it expelled in 1998. If the government of Saddam Hussein has nothing to hide, something it continues to claim, then now is the time to prove it to the entire world. Iraq's refusal to cooperate is tacit admission of deception and of the pursuit and stockpiling of chemical, biological, and, yes, admission that the rumors of his pressing ahead to develop nuclear warheads are, in fact, true. Last week, at a meeting in Vienna, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan told an Iraqi delegation in no uncertain terms that the Iraqi Government must allow U.N. inspectors back in or there was no point to continue discussions and negotiations. There was no response from the Iraqi delegation, who simply left Vienna and returned to Baghdad. I understand that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who during a 34-year reign of terror has systematically eliminated all internal opposition, even including members of his own family. He has ruthlessly persecuted Iraq's Kurdish minority. He has used chemical weapons against the Kurds and his own people. He has initiated a decade-long war against Iran, at the cost of nearly 2 million casualties. He has financially supported Palestinian terrorists and he has invaded Kuwait, prompting the United States to launch Operation Desert Storm. In the history of our Nation, we have never attacked another country, except in response to an attack on our own shores, our people or our national interests. Until and unless the administration is prepared to come forward to offer its rationale, to submit its evidence to the American people, and to allow Congress to vote to authorize the use of force, an attack on Iraq, I believe, is both unwise and ill timed. Unwise because it would certainly encourage an unprecedented response by Saddam Hussein, most likely targeted against Israel. Unwise because until the administration has thought through the who, the what, and the how of the regime that will take power in Iraq after Saddam Hussein is disposed of, any military action may well have unintended and undesirable consequences. One cannot overemphasize how important the nature of the next Iraqi regime is to the future of the Middle East. It will require that the United States engage in nation building, something this administration has been reluctant to do. Call it what you will, but in the wake of toppling Saddam Hussein our commitment to Iraq must not be brief or perfunctory. This, I believe, is ill timed because of the unfinished business in Afghanistan, the continuing threat of al-Qaida, and the fact that at least two-thirds of the al-Qaida leadership, including Osama bin Laden, remain at large. The war against terror has not yet been won. We should stay the course. So before rushing precipitously forward in an attack on Iraq, I urge the Bush administration to work with allies and the United Nations to develop a multilateral approach to compel Iraq to live up to its obligations under Security Council Resolution 687. Should Iraq be unwilling to live up to its obligations and the President determines that there is just cause for military action against Iraq, I urge him to come before this Congress, to come before the American people, to make his case and let us in turn discharge our constitutional duty to debate and vote on the authorization of the use of force. The many thousands of our sons and daughters who will bear the brunt of such an operation, some of whom will surely pay the highest price, deserve no less. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my very deep regret that the Bush administration has decided not to release the $34 million allocated for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, UNFPA. I would ask the White House to reconsider its decision. At stake here is vital assistance for needy individuals throughout the developing world, living under the threat of HIV infection and deteriorating health conditions. Indeed, it is a shame that such assistance--assistance that can save lives--is being held hostage by domestic politics, and the misconceptions of the anti-choice wing of the Republican Party. I would remind the administration that the $34 million was appropriated by Congress in a spirit of bipartisan consensus, after 2 months of negotiations. During these talks there was never any question whether or not to allocate the funds, but simply how much. The White House's own budget proposal for fiscal year 2002 included $25 million for the fund, $3.5 million more than allocated by the Clinton administration. Within this context, the administration's decision is all the more perplexing. It stands as painful proof that the debate over U.S. support for international family planning has been distorted all out proportion. In particular, there remains a belief, in some quarters, that the United Nations Fund for Population Activities either condones or even assists in abortion and coercive sterilization. This is, at best, nothing but hearsay. And if such proof does exist, why haven't we seen or heard anything substantive about it? With respect to China, in May the State Department sent a mission to investigate such allegations, and it found no evidence at all of that the fund was involved, in any way, in abortion or coercive sterilization. A month before, a British delegation drew a similar conclusion. For the record, I would like to quote directly from the State Department's conclusions. ``We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in [China].'' In light of this finding, the report recommends, and I quote, ``that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA.'' I would also argue that it is precisely because of the questions raised about China's policies, that United Nations presence there becomes that much more important. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities remains the best way to do this. Only last year, Secretary of State Colin Powell praised the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, saying that it was engaged in ``critical population and assistance to developing countries.'' This explains why the Department of State provided $600,000 to the fund for sanity supplies, clean undergarments, and emergency infant delivery kits for Afghan refugees in Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. The facts speak for themselves. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities does not subsidize abortion services in any country. Its executive director, Madame Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, has said that the fund would cease its family planning program in China, if any allegations of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization could be verified. I would also argue that we would be wise to focus on the wider role that the United Nations Fund for Population Activities plays, most notably in the critical area of HIV prevention. And I would remind my colleagues of just a few of the troubling facts revealed at the recent AIDS conference in Barcelona. In Botswana, for example--a country where 38 percent of the adult population is infected with HIV--20 percent of high-school-age students believe that you can tell whether a person has HIV/AIDS simply by looking at them. In Malawi, where 15 percent of all adults are HIV positive, 64 percent of young men admit to not using a condom with their most recent sexual partner. The scourge of AIDS throughout sub-Saharan Africa is a human tragedy of terrifying proportions. How can we turn our backs on those not yet infected, especially when the reason for doing so is based on unfounded allegations and a misunderstanding of the term ``family planning.'' There are no hidden meanings; there is no secret agenda. Family planning does not condone or promote abortion. Simply put, family planning means: women able to control their reproductive destinies; couples given the information necessary to make their own choices about family size and the timing of births; health care officials reaching out to adolescents and young adults, as a means to educate them, and in turn prevent HIV infection and unwanted pregnancies. Healthy families--the heart of any healthy society--depend upon women being able to make informed choices. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities helps women do just that--make a choice--which I hold to be a fundamental right of women everywhere, regardless of their economic circumstances. Women here in the United States take such information for granted, and we can not forget that this is all too often unavailable to poor women in the developing world. How to protect themselves from HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases, how to space pregnancies so that they can better manage the size of their families, and how to lower the risks of childbirth and increase their chances of delivering healthy babies--this is at the heart of the information the United Nations Fund for Population Activities provides. This strikes me as hardly immoral or illegal. In closing, Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the world's population today stands at more than six billion--a figure that shows no signs of stabilizing. In fact, the United Nations estimates this number could double, to 12 billion, by the year 2050. The brunt of this growth will impact precisely those areas least able to absorb it--namely, the developing world. Overpopulation has already caused significant problems, like malnutrition, disease, environmental degradation, and political instability. If we in the United States bury our heads in the sand here, it will become increasing likely that overpopulation could overwhelm such fragile societies. Given such alarming facts, the purpose of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities--to reduce poverty, improve health and raise living standards around the world--will become only more important in the years to come. The United States, in my mind, has two options: one, either we help support international family planning efforts, in a way that is both responsible and accountable; or two, we relinquish our leadership role, and turn our backs on the developing world. The Bush Administration seems to have taken the latter course, and I can only hope that it reconsiders its decision and will do what is right. It should release the $34 million allocated to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. Failure to do so would set an unfortunate precedent.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``CLEAN- UP Meth Act,'' a bill to address illegal and environmentally disastrous methamphetamine production. I am pleased to submit this bill on behalf of myself, Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas, and Senator Kohl. Essentially, this bill would help our Federal, State and local governments combat methamphetamine on a number of levels, from production to clean-up, prosecution to prevention. The legislation would accomplish this with two key components: First, the bill would allocate $125 million for important training and cleanup efforts, including training local law enforcement to effectively clean up meth lab and dump sites. And second, we would make it much harder for meth dealers to get the precursor pseudoephedrine products necessary to make this illegal drug. Once predominantly found in the American Southwest, methamphetamine's presence now stretches from coast to coast. Once predominantly found in rural areas, its harmful effects now extend from our smallest towns to our biggest cities. For instance, the number of clandestine meth labs discovered in North Carolina has doubled every year for the past four years. In New Orleans, police in the Jefferson district seized a total of 828 grams of methamphetamine in all of the year 2000. Last year, they seized more than ten times that amount, 9,003 grams, with a street value of more than $1 million. I'm sorry to say that my home State of California has been referred to as the ``Colombia of meth production.'' In fact, our State is known as the ``source country'' for the drug, producing roughly 80 percent of the Nation's methamphetamine supply. According to the DEA, 1,847 clandestine meth labs were found last year in California alone. Each of these 1,847 labs in California, and each of the labs scattered around this Nation near schools, on farms, in trailer parks and in quiet suburban neighborhoods, creates a whole host of dangers and toxic waste. The actual production of methamphetamine is harmful in a number of ways. First, the hazardous chemicals used in meth production are toxic, and long-term exposure is damaging. Furthermore, the materials can also be explosive and dangerous. Production using these volatile materials has resulted in countless accidents, houses and even apartment buildings burned to the ground, explosions that scatter chemicals and flames, and chemical reactions that cause untold damage to the individuals involved in meth production or simply living in the same household, individuals that, too often, include children. Meth production also poses risks to the health of the surrounding public and environment. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, NDIC, for every pound of meth produced, five to seven pounds of hazardous waste results from the production as well. Meth producers dump this waste anywhere and everywhere, from nearby ditches to public lands, from pits dug in the middle of a farm to rivers and lakes. One private contractor hired to clean up meth-related hazardous dump sites in California responded to more than 500 calls in 2000 alone. And one of those dump sites was located along the banks of the California Aqueduct, which is a direct source of water for Los Angeles. NDIC investigators have found also found toxic chemicals discarded into household drains and storm drains. And the precursors used to make meth, and the toxic byproducts, may last for years in the soil. Decontaminating these sites is what makes clean-up so expensive, with costs ranging from $5,000 to $150,000 per site. State police in Baltimore, MD claim that its costs taxpayers nearly $75,000 each time a meth lab must be cleaned up. According to the DEA, that agency spent more than $22 million cleaning up 6,609 labs nationwide. These extraordinary costs simply cannot be maintained on the local level without Federal support. These costs are proof of why Federal funding for such valuable efforts is necessary. So the first thing this legislation would do is help law enforcement as well as the public pay these important costs, by providing millions to help clean-up labs and train law enforcement authorities to properly and safety do this important work. Specifically, the CLEAN-UP Meth bill would provide: $15 million for clean-up and remediation of meth contaminated lands managed by the Departments of Agriculture or Interior; $15 million for Department of Agriculture grants to State and local governments and to private persons to clean up meth contaminated lands; $20 million for OSHA grants to local law enforcement agencies for training and equipment for the safe identification, handling, clean-up and disposal of meth labs; and $10 million for Department of Labor grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them comply with Federal laws regarding cleanup and disposal of meth labs. Second, this legislation includes resources to help State and local officials prosecute meth offenses, educate the public, and study the effects of meth use. Methamphetamine is so prevalent partly because it is simple to make and is profitable. Producers of meth range from people with advanced chemistry degrees to those who are self-taught. Recipes are easily available in books as well as over the Internet. The drug does not have to be smuggled in across secured international borders. Fifty percent of the Nation's consumed methamphetamine is produced right here in our country. In fact, the basic ingredients can be found in your local pharmacy. These relatively inexpensive materials can be used to create a drug that fetches much higher prices. For example, ounce quantities are worth between $1,500 and $2,000 and can be sold to individual users for about $100 a gram in crystallized powder form that can be smoked, snorted, swallowed or turned into liquid and injected. According to the Office of National drug Control Policy, ONDCP, methamphetamine users spent nearly $6 billion on the drug in 1999. Methamphetamine is also highly addictive. Known on the street as crank, speed, ice and zip, methamphetamine is cheaper than cocaine, more addictive than crack and causes more brain damage than heroin or alcohol. A single dose of this ``poor man's cocaine'' can keep a person awake for three to four days at a time and has been associated with paranoia and often violence. In California's Central Valley, methamphetamine has become the drug of choice and a principal cause of crime. I firmly believe that law enforcement officials cannot effectively fight this drug and its harmful effects unless we provide them with the proper resources. Already this year, police in Oklahoma City have seized 115 meth labs. Law enforcement officials there have attributed these seizures to the support from Federal grants. Keith Cain, a sheriff in Daviess County, KY also claims that Federal funding has proved to be crucial to the war against meth. According to Cain, ``Without that money, we would not have been able to be as proactive as we've been.'' Last year, the federally funded Central Valley High-Intensity Drug Trafficking project to restrict the supply of the chemical agents used in making the deadly drug was showing impressive results. A team of specialists from local drug units, the California Highway Patrol, DEA and FBI averaged one bust a week of the clandestine ``super labs'' that had made the Central Valley the national center for the production of methamphetamine. These triumphs were the direct result of federal funding and proof that allocating Federal resources is imperative to progress. However, since September 11, agents have been removed from the project and transferred to anti-terrorism work. The lack of drug enforcement resources has created a strain on the project and threatens the progress it has had combating methamphetamine. It would be a tragedy to California and the country if we lost all of the progress this program and others like it have made in the war on meth simply due to a lack of resources. Programs like this one have proven to be effective and need our continued support. Our bill would provide: $20 million for training of State and local prosecutors and law enforcement agents for prosecution of meth offenses, $5 million of which will be dedicated for rural communities and $2 million to reimburse the DEA for existing training programs; $10 million additional for training at the DEA's Clandestine Laboratory Training Facility in Quantico, VA; $2 million for the Department of Justice for the collection, aggregation and dissemination of meth lab seizure stats by the El Paso Intelligence Center, EPIC. Third, we address the problems of our children. Raids and seizures of clandestine meth labs have been instrumental to the war on meth and have uncovered a number of alarming issues, but none more troubling than the effect meth production has on the children of meth dealers and their friends. Drug rings and meth trafficking organizations found throughout the American West have been linked to Mexican drug traffickers as well as white supremacist groups. Last year, for instance, law enforcement authorities in Los Angeles County uncovered a sophisticated meth trafficking ring that includes suspects with tattoos of Nazi swastikas and belong to a local gang called the ``Untouchables.'' During police raids of their meth labs and headquarters, agents seized nearly $500,000 in cash and more than 100 high-powered weapons, including assault rifles and a grenade launcher. Earlier this year, Central Valley investigators raided a methamphetamine super-lab in a farmhouse on the outskirts on Merced, CA. Inside, investigators found vats of toxic chemicals, large supplies of pseudoephedrine used in producing meth and three illegal firearms. Yet, the most disturbing part of this story is that while the manufacturers were engaged in the potentially explosive process of extracting pure methamphetamine, four small children watched television in the next room. The children were taken to a local hospital and tested positive for methamphetamine contamination. I would like to say that this is a rare case. However, this story is no exception. In 2001, 1,989 children were found in clandestine meth labs, materials storage sites and dump sites across the country. The CLEAN-UP Meth Act would provide $2.5 million for grants to states for treatment of children suffering adverse health impacts from meth- related exposure. The bill also includes $20 million for the development of anti- methamphetamine education programs in our nation's schools. Informing and educating our children on the dangers of this drug is the first step in reducing the number of new users of methamphetamine. In addition to the funding provisions of the bill, which were introduced by Representative Ose in the House, this legislation also contains language to close the ``Blister Pack Loophole'' in current law, which currently allows meth dealers to purchase unlimited quantities of pseudoephedrine products, generally cold and sinus medication, as long as it is packaged in blister packs, those tin foil and plastic packages most of us buy these days, which require that each pill be separate rather than simply poured into a bottle. Our current law limits retail sales of bottled pseudoephedrine to just 9 grams, because we found several years ago that meth dealers would go into a pharmacy, a Costco or other large store, sweep the shelves clean of cold medicine, bring the bottles back to the lab, cut off the tops of the bottles without even bothering to unscrew the caps instead, and pour the pills out as the first step to making meth. When we passed the 9 gram threshold, and before that the 24-gram threshold, for bottled pills, I made the case that if limits were placed on bottles only, meth dealers would simply start buying blister- packed pills instead. At the time, some argued that blister packs were simply too unwieldy for meth manufacturers to bother with, the process of popping individual pills out of each blister would be too time consuming. But we had evidence from California that dealers were already using these blister packs, so as a compromise we asked the DEA to conduct a nationwide study of whether blister packs posed a problem. Well, guess what, they do. According to the report we requested from the DEA, which was finalized late last year, blister packaged pseudoephedrine products seized at clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and other locations, such as dumpsites, have involved seizures of over a million tablets. The seizure of so many blister packaged pseudoephedrine products shows convincingly that blister packaging is not a deterrent to ordinary, over-the-counter pseudoephedrine use in clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. Indeed, the report even includes information about automated machines whose sole purpose is to remove pills from blister packs on a massive scale. These machines have been found in meth labs, along with hundreds, even thousands, of empty blister packs. So clearly, what we argued in 1999, and in 1996, is true. Meth manufacturers are using blister packs, and something must be done to stop them as best we can. In order to address this problem, DEA recommended in the report it released late last year that the blister pack loophole be closed, and that the current retail sales limit of 9 grams for bottled pseudoephedrine be extended to blister packed products as well. And that is what this bill would do. The meth problem is not just a California problem, or a New York problem, or even an Iowa problem. The meth problem is a national problem, with tragic consequences across this great country. Without a continuing, nationwide, relentless effort on the part of the Federal Government, this problem will continue to grow and to infect our children and our communities with the scourge of methamphetamine production and use. I believe DEA Director Hutchinson put it best this spring when he argued in support of Federal efforts to crack down on meth. ``It clearly impacts every one of our districts, every segment of our society and every age group.'' I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join the latest step towards progress in our war against methamphetamine.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``CLEAN- UP Meth Act,'' a bill to address illegal and environmentally disastrous methamphetamine production. I am pleased to submit this bill on behalf of myself, Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas, and Senator Kohl. Essentially, this bill would help our Federal, State and local governments combat methamphetamine on a number of levels, from production to clean-up, prosecution to prevention. The legislation would accomplish this with two key components: First, the bill would allocate $125 million for important training and cleanup efforts, including training local law enforcement to effectively clean up meth lab and dump sites. And second, we would make it much harder for meth dealers to get the precursor pseudoephedrine products necessary to make this illegal drug. Once predominantly found in the American Southwest, methamphetamine's presence now stretches from coast to coast. Once predominantly found in rural areas, its harmful effects now extend from our smallest towns to our biggest cities. For instance, the number of clandestine meth labs discovered in North Carolina has doubled every year for the past four years. In New Orleans, police in the Jefferson district seized a total of 828 grams of methamphetamine in all of the year 2000. Last year, they seized more than ten times that amount, 9,003 grams, with a street value of more than $1 million. I'm sorry to say that my home State of California has been referred to as the ``Colombia of meth production.'' In fact, our State is known as the ``source country'' for the drug, producing roughly 80 percent of the Nation's methamphetamine supply. According to the DEA, 1,847 clandestine meth labs were found last year in California alone. Each of these 1,847 labs in California, and each of the labs scattered around this Nation near schools, on farms, in trailer parks and in quiet suburban neighborhoods, creates a whole host of dangers and toxic waste. The actual production of methamphetamine is harmful in a number of ways. First, the hazardous chemicals used in meth production are toxic, and long-term exposure is damaging. Furthermore, the materials can also be explosive and dangerous. Production using these volatile materials has resulted in countless accidents, houses and even apartment buildings burned to the ground, explosions that scatter chemicals and flames, and chemical reactions that cause untold damage to the individuals involved in meth production or simply living in the same household, individuals that, too often, include children. Meth production also poses risks to the health of the surrounding public and environment. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, NDIC, for every pound of meth produced, five to seven pounds of hazardous waste results from the production as well. Meth producers dump this waste anywhere and everywhere, from nearby ditches to public lands, from pits dug in the middle of a farm to rivers and lakes. One private contractor hired to clean up meth-related hazardous dump sites in California responded to more than 500 calls in 2000 alone. And one of those dump sites was located along the banks of the California Aqueduct, which is a direct source of water for Los Angeles. NDIC investigators have found also found toxic chemicals discarded into household drains and storm drains. And the precursors used to make meth, and the toxic byproducts, may last for years in the soil. Decontaminating these sites is what makes clean-up so expensive, with costs ranging from $5,000 to $150,000 per site. State police in Baltimore, MD claim that its costs taxpayers nearly $75,000 each time a meth lab must be cleaned up. According to the DEA, that agency spent more than $22 million cleaning up 6,609 labs nationwide. These extraordinary costs simply cannot be maintained on the local level without Federal support. These costs are proof of why Federal funding for such valuable efforts is necessary. So the first thing this legislation would do is help law enforcement as well as the public pay these important costs, by providing millions to help clean-up labs and train law enforcement authorities to properly and safety do this important work. Specifically, the CLEAN-UP Meth bill would provide: $15 million for clean-up and remediation of meth contaminated lands managed by the Departments of Agriculture or Interior; $15 million for Department of Agriculture grants to State and local governments and to private persons to clean up meth contaminated lands; $20 million for OSHA grants to local law enforcement agencies for training and equipment for the safe identification, handling, clean-up and disposal of meth labs; and $10 million for Department of Labor grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them comply with Federal laws regarding cleanup and disposal of meth labs. Second, this legislation includes resources to help State and local officials prosecute meth offenses, educate the public, and study the effects of meth use. Methamphetamine is so prevalent partly because it is simple to make and is profitable. Producers of meth range from people with advanced chemistry degrees to those who are self-taught. Recipes are easily available in books as well as over the Internet. The drug does not have to be smuggled in across secured international borders. Fifty percent of the Nation's consumed methamphetamine is produced right here in our country. In fact, the basic ingredients can be found in your local pharmacy. These relatively inexpensive materials can be used to create a drug that fetches much higher prices. For example, ounce quantities are worth between $1,500 and $2,000 and can be sold to individual users for about $100 a gram in crystallized powder form that can be smoked, snorted, swallowed or turned into liquid and injected. According to the Office of National drug Control Policy, ONDCP, methamphetamine users spent nearly $6 billion on the drug in 1999. Methamphetamine is also highly addictive. Known on the street as crank, speed, ice and zip, methamphetamine is cheaper than cocaine, more addictive than crack and causes more brain damage than heroin or alcohol. A single dose of this ``poor man's cocaine'' can keep a person awake for three to four days at a time and has been associated with paranoia and often violence. In California's Central Valley, methamphetamine has become the drug of choice and a principal cause of crime. I firmly believe that law enforcement officials cannot effectively fight this drug and its harmful effects unless we provide them with the proper resources. Already this year, police in Oklahoma City have seized 115 meth labs. Law enforcement officials there have attributed these seizures to the support from Federal grants. Keith Cain, a sheriff in Daviess County, KY also claims that Federal funding has proved to be crucial to the war against meth. According to Cain, ``Without that money, we would not have been able to be as proactive as we've been.'' Last year, the federally funded Central Valley High-Intensity Drug Trafficking project to restrict the supply of the chemical agents used in making the deadly drug was showing impressive results. A team of specialists from local drug units, the California Highway Patrol, DEA and FBI averaged one bust a week of the clandestine ``super labs'' that had made the Central Valley the national center for the production of methamphetamine. These triumphs were the direct result of federal funding and proof that allocating Federal resources is imperative to progress. However, since September 11, agents have been removed from the project and transferred to anti-terrorism work. The lack of drug enforcement resources has created a strain on the project and threatens the progress it has had combating methamphetamine. It would be a tragedy to California and the country if we lost all of the progress this program and others like it have made in the war on meth simply due to a lack of resources. Programs like this one have proven to be effective and need our continued support. Our bill would provide: $20 million for training of State and local prosecutors and law enforcement agents for prosecution of meth offenses, $5 million of which will be dedicated for rural communities and $2 million to reimburse the DEA for existing training programs; $10 million additional for training at the DEA's Clandestine Laboratory Training Facility in Quantico, VA; $2 million for the Department of Justice for the collection, aggregation and dissemination of meth lab seizure stats by the El Paso Intelligence Center, EPIC. Third, we address the problems of our children. Raids and seizures of clandestine meth labs have been instrumental to the war on meth and have uncovered a number of alarming issues, but none more troubling than the effect meth production has on the children of meth dealers and their friends. Drug rings and meth trafficking organizations found throughout the American West have been linked to Mexican drug traffickers as well as white supremacist groups. Last year, for instance, law enforcement authorities in Los Angeles County uncovered a sophisticated meth trafficking ring that includes suspects with tattoos of Nazi swastikas and belong to a local gang called the ``Untouchables.'' During police raids of their meth labs and headquarters, agents seized nearly $500,000 in cash and more than 100 high-powered weapons, including assault rifles and a grenade launcher. Earlier this year, Central Valley investigators raided a methamphetamine super-lab in a farmhouse on the outskirts on Merced, CA. Inside, investigators found vats of toxic chemicals, large supplies of pseudoephedrine used in producing meth and three illegal firearms. Yet, the most disturbing part of this story is that while the manufacturers were engaged in the potentially explosive process of extracting pure methamphetamine, four small children watched television in the next room. The children were taken to a local hospital and tested positive for methamphetamine contamination. I would like to say that this is a rare case. However, this story is no exception. In 2001, 1,989 children were found in clandestine meth labs, materials storage sites and dump sites across the country. The CLEAN-UP Meth Act would provide $2.5 million for grants to states for treatment of children suffering adverse health impacts from meth- related exposure. The bill also includes $20 million for the development of anti- methamphetamine education programs in our nation's schools. Informing and educating our children on the dangers of this drug is the first step in reducing the number of new users of methamphetamine. In addition to the funding provisions of the bill, which were introduced by Representative Ose in the House, this legislation also contains language to close the ``Blister Pack Loophole'' in current law, which currently allows meth dealers to purchase unlimited quantities of pseudoephedrine products, generally cold and sinus medication, as long as it is packaged in blister packs, those tin foil and plastic packages most of us buy these days, which require that each pill be separate rather than simply poured into a bottle. Our current law limits retail sales of bottled pseudoephedrine to just 9 grams, because we found several years ago that meth dealers would go into a pharmacy, a Costco or other large store, sweep the shelves clean of cold medicine, bring the bottles back to the lab, cut off the tops of the bottles without even bothering to unscrew the caps instead, and pour the pills out as the first step to making meth. When we passed the 9 gram threshold, and before that the 24-gram threshold, for bottled pills, I made the case that if limits were placed on bottles only, meth dealers would simply start buying blister- packed pills instead. At the time, some argued that blister packs were simply too unwieldy for meth manufacturers to bother with, the process of popping individual pills out of each blister would be too time consuming. But we had evidence from California that dealers were already using these blister packs, so as a compromise we asked the DEA to conduct a nationwide study of whether blister packs posed a problem. Well, guess what, they do. According to the report we requested from the DEA, which was finalized late last year, blister packaged pseudoephedrine products seized at clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and other locations, such as dumpsites, have involved seizures of over a million tablets. The seizure of so many blister packaged pseudoephedrine products shows convincingly that blister packaging is not a deterrent to ordinary, over-the-counter pseudoephedrine use in clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. Indeed, the report even includes information about automated machines whose sole purpose is to remove pills from blister packs on a massive scale. These machines have been found in meth labs, along with hundreds, even thousands, of empty blister packs. So clearly, what we argued in 1999, and in 1996, is true. Meth manufacturers are using blister packs, and something must be done to stop them as best we can. In order to address this problem, DEA recommended in the report it released late last year that the blister pack loophole be closed, and that the current retail sales limit of 9 grams for bottled pseudoephedrine be extended to blister packed products as well. And that is what this bill would do. The meth problem is not just a California problem, or a New York problem, or even an Iowa problem. The meth problem is a national problem, with tragic consequences across this great country. Without a continuing, nationwide, relentless effort on the part of the Federal Government, this problem will continue to grow and to infect our children and our communities with the scourge of methamphetamine production and use. I believe DEA Director Hutchinson put it best this spring when he argued in support of Federal efforts to crack down on meth. ``It clearly impacts every one of our districts, every segment of our society and every age group.'' I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join the latest step towards progress in our war against methamphetamine.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.