Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as chairman of the subcommittee, I thank the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Texas, for her help on this bill. She has been a wonderful colleague with whom to work, and I am very grateful for that. Mr. President, essentially, this bill, as Senator Hutchison said, provides $10.6 billion in new budget authority. That is a tenth of 1 percent over last year's appropriation. It is 10 percent over the President's appropriation. The reason for this is that the President cut the Guard and the Reserve 52 percent from last year's budget request. We do not believe they can sustain their infrastructure requirements with that kind of a funding shortfall. As Senator Hutchison mentioned, every project is in the 5-year defense plan. Every project has been authorized. Every project is the base commander's priority. With respect to the transformation initiative, we didn't decide the locations, the services decided the locations. Both the Army and the Air Force have identified the locations for their transformation initiatives. The Army involved 13 active and Guard installations in six States, plus Germany. The Air Force's transformation involves 53 active, Guard, and Reserve bases in 32 States, plus Germany, Japan, and Puerto Rico. The Appropriations Committee is not--and I stress that--attempting to divert funding from any of these planned locations or to influence where the money will go. These decisions have been and will be made by the services. The purpose of the transformation initiative is to accelerate the process. Infrastructure is a long lead time item, and we need to start investing more in this transformation infrastructure now to meet the service requirements. Essentially, 53 percent of this bill is for military construction for the active and Reserve components. It is $610 million for the Guard and Reserve, $1.1 billion for barracks, $26 million for child development, $137 million for medical facility, and $159 million for chemical demilitarization. The remaining 40 percent--$4.23 billion--is for family housing, including new housing, housing improvements, and operation and maintenance of units. At the BRAC cleanup, as Senator Hutchison stated, I can tell you that we have one closing base--McClellan Air Force Base--in northern California, where plutonium has badly contaminated the ground. Senator Hutchison, in her State, has toxic materials that are seeping into residential areas from Kelly Air Force Base. There is no question in either of our minds that the BRAC rounds we have completed were not sufficiently funded with environmental remediation dollars. The proof is in the pudding, and that pudding is that many bases still cannot be transitioned into productive civilian use because of the absence of the ability to clean them up. Mr. President, the MilCon bill is important to the men and women in uniform who serve our Nation at home and overseas. We believe it is a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to approve it. How much time do I have left?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the remarks of the Senators of New York and assure them that we will do our best to retain these projects in conference.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Senator Hutchison and I authored this amendment on behalf of Senators Thurmond, Domenici, Bingaman, Biden, Carper, Wyden, Gordon Smith, Frist, and Thompson. The amendment would include in the military construction bill five projects that were authorized by the Senate during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act. These projects include a parking garage at Walter Reed Medical Center in the District of Columbia; an Anechoic testing chamber at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico; a control tower at Dover Air Force base in Delaware; a Joint Readiness Center at Eugene, OR; and a composite maintenance complex in Nashville, TN. All of these projects have been authorized. They meet all the requirements of the military construction program, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Again, I thank my ranking member. It was great to work with her, and I think she knows that. I think we have a very good bill. Amendment No. 4306

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague for his kind words and would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the Senators from New York.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my ranking member, Senator Hutchison of Texas, to bring the Fiscal Year 2003 Military Construction Appropriations bill to the Senate for consideration. This is a balanced, bipartisan bill intended to meet some of the most pressing infrastructure requirements of our military forces. This bill provides $10.6 billion in new budget authority. It represents an increase of less than one tenth of one percent over last year's $10.5 billion military construction bill. But it is nearly 10 percent more than the President's 2003 budget request. The 2003 budget request submitted by the President severely underfunded the Guard and Reserves. The request was 52 percent below last year's request. Congress is left to make up the shortfall. As all Members know, the Defense Emergency Response Fund funded all projects identified by the President as necessary for the war on terror. While it may be tempting to blame the decrease in military construction funding on the costs of fighting a war on terror, the fact is that the war on terror is fully funded through the Defense Emergency Response Fund. This bill was coordinated carefully with the Armed Services Committee, and each project in this bill is included in the National Defense Authorization Act passed by the Senate. All of the projects in this bill meet the stringent standards for military construction funding set by the Senate. Every project we funded is in the Services' Future Years Defense Plans, and every project is a top priority of the installation commanders. Mr. President, the bill was unanimously reported out of the Appropriations Committee on June 27. The package before the Senate today includes technical and conforming changes in the bill and report, as authorized by the full Committee. These changes include clarification of report language as needed and, in one instance, a correction in the tables to delete an unauthorized project that was inadvertently included in the committee print. The bill provides $5.6 billion--53 percent of the total--for military construction for active and reserve components. Included in this funding is $1.1 billion for barracks; $26 million for child development centers; $137 million for hospital and medical facilities; $159 million for the Chemical Demilitarization Program; and $610 million for the Guard and Reserve components. An additional $4.23 billion, or 40 percent of the total bill, goes to family housing. This includes $1.33 billion for new family housing units and improvements to existing units; and $2.9 billion for operation and maintenance of existing units. This bill also includes two new military construction initiatives. The first is the Army and Air Force Transformation Initiative, which sets aside funding for the Army and the Air Force to be used for infrastructure requirements. For the Army, the funding is allocated for construction related to the Interim Brigade Combat Teams. The Interim Brigades, which were just recently renamed Stryker Brigades, are essential to the Army's effort to become a lighter, more mobile, more effective fighting force. Army officials testified before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee earlier this year that current levels of military construction funding are not adequate to meet the Army's time line for these brigades. Likewise, the Air Force is in need of additional funding to move forward quickly with the beddown of aircraft associated with its Air Mobility Modernization Program. The Air Force is facing a serious shortfall in airlift capability. The Air Mobility Modernization Program, which encompasses the acquisition and upgrading of C-17s, C- 5s, and C-130s, is urgently needed. Simply put, the timetables for Army and Air Force transformation that were in place prior to September 11 are no longer adequate. The war on terror has placed pressing new demands, not only on personnel and equipment, but also on infrastructure. The large increase in defense funding that has occurred since September 11 reflects those demands. Under the transformation initiative, the committee has made $100 million available each for the Army and Air Force to be used for infrastructure requirements of the Stryker Brigades and C-17 Air Mobility programs, as determined by the Services. The second major initiative in this bill is the BRAC Environmental Cleanup Acceleration Initiative. This initiative provides an extra $100 million above the fiscal year 2003 budget request to accelerate the cleanup of dangerous contaminants at military bases that have been closed or realigned as part of the BRAC process. Until the environmental cleanup process is completed, these closed bases are the equivalent of giant white elephants. The services no longer need them, but the communities cannot complete the conversion of them to productive use. In some cases, the lengthy cleanup process presents a problem far worse than just an economic drain on the Services and the communities--in some cases, the contaminants polluting the soil of closed military bases present a serious hazard to human health and the environment. In my home state of California, for example, plutonium contamination at McClellan Air Force Base continues to present a hazard to the community and to impede progress towards profitable reuse of the property. In Texas, toxic groundwater that has migrated to nearby neighborhoods from the former Kelly Air Force Base has raised fears among residents that the pollution could be causing health problems. These are only two of many examples. The fact is, we have a responsibility to the American people to clean up the buried ordnance and hazardous wastes that contaminate many of our closed or realigned military installations. And I believe that we have a responsibility to act expeditiously. Although the President requested only $545 million for BRAC environmental cleanup, the Services, at the request of the Committee, identified another $237 million in environmental cleanup requirements that could be executed in 2003 if funding were made available. We could not provide the full $237 million needed, but the extra $100 million we recommended will help to speed the cleanup process. Simple common sense indicates that the military should finish the cleanup from the first four rounds of BRAC before diverting scarce resources and creating additional cleanup costs in another round of base closures. I want to point out that all the projects added to military construction authorization and appropriations bills that are not part of the President's budget request are carefully screened and vetted by the Services. They are the priorities of the men and women who live and work on military installations throughout the country, and sometimes those priorities differ from the priorities of the Pentagon. Installation commanders are uniquely attuned to the needs of their bases, whereas the budget officers at the Pentagon and the Office of Management and Budget are focused on the corporate needs of the Defense Department as a whole. In some cases, a child care center or a barracks may be essential to the well-being of a base, but may not score high enough at the Pentagon to make it into the President's budget. In other cases, a worthy project may be programmed for funding down the road when it is urgently needed now. Mr. President, this bill meets many military construction needs--all of the projects are authorized, are in the military's Future Year's Defense Plan, and are the base commander's priority. I urge my colleagues to support it. I would like to thank my ranking member for her support in developing this bill. It is a privilege and a pleasure to work with Senator Hutchison. I also thank Chairman Byrd, Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye for their guidance and support in developing this package. And I thank the staff of the subcommittee for their dedication and hard work in putting this package together. I thank my ranking member for her support in developing this bill. I also thank Chairman Byrd, Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye for their guidance and support in developing this package. I also thank the staff, specifically Christina Evans, B.G. Wright, and Matt Miller on the Democratic side, and Sid Ashworth, Alycia Farrell, and Michael Ralsky on the Republican side. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield to the ranking member, Senator Hutchison from Texas.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe that completes the military construction bill. Mr. President, I yield back all my time. It is my understanding the vote will be tomorrow at 10:30.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer my support and cosponsor an amendment to S. 2673 offered by the senior Senator from New York, which would prohibit all loans by a corporation to its directors or executive officers. Among the abuses committed by senior executives and directors at companies such as WorldCom, Enron, and Global Crossing is the practice of issuing large, favorable loans to those executives and directors. Those loans can create conflicts of interest that limit that the ability of outside directors, in particular, to voice their criticism of the institution. Many years ago, I served on the board of directors of a bank, and noted that at the time, several of the directors had hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of outstanding loans at that bank. At the time, this occurred to me to be wrong, and I could not understand why these directors did not take out loans at another bank, thereby avoiding any conflicts of interest. The only conclusion I could draw was that the loans to these directors were either easier to procure or made on more favorable terms than loans from another bank would be. I see no justification for providing loans to corporate directors or executive officers. The goal of the reforms that we are currently debating should be to create an environment in which outside directors and major corporate officers act in as pure and honest a manner as possible. They should not enter into any appearance of conflict, such as the conflict that occurs when the corporation that they serve extends them a personal loan. When an individual investor chooses to buy a stock, he or she does so with the full knowledge that it might turn out to be a bad investment. The stock may appreciate in value, but it might also go sour. Anyone who makes that investment knows that the only way to be sure not to lose any money is to keep the money in cash or buy a T-bill. But that is not the way it worked for the CEOs and directors of some of the largest public companies in this country. For example, Bernard Ebbers, the former CEO of WorldCom, took out $430 million in loans from his company between September 2000 and the end of 2001. When the SEC began investigating WorldCom earlier this year, $343 million in loans were still outstanding, most of which may never be recovered by WorldCom's investors. Those loans to Ebbers are far from unique in corporate America today. One of the most egregious examples of this type of abuse recent months is the disclosure of $3.1 billion in loans extended to family members and affiliated business interests of the Rigas family by Adelphia Communications, a publicly traded company controlled by the Rigas family. These loans were never disclosed to shareholders, and were apparently used to shore up a wide variety of business deals involving Rigas family members, including a golf course and an infusion of cash into the Buffalo Sabres hockey team. On July 9, President Bush went to Wall Street and called for, among other things, ``an end to all company loans to corporate officers.'' I believe that the President was right, and have cosponsored this amendment with that goal in mind. Investors have a right to know exactly how much of their dividends are going to pay for excessive pay packages. They also have a right to expect that the board of directors is truly independent and that no directors are tied too closely to the corporation they serve because of loans they have received from it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2673, the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002. Nearly every day, it seems, the front pages of our newspapers are awash in stories about the latest corporate accounting scandal. Just 3 weeks ago we learned that WorldCom hid $3.8 billion in expenses in the last five quarters alone. And WorldCom is merely the latest member of an increasingly large group of public corporations that have knowingly deceived shareholders, directors, and, in some cases, their own auditors. WorldCom, Enron, Tyco, Global Crossing, Xerox--the list goes on and on. Much attention has been focused on the huge sums that CEOs and other senior executives have extracted from these companies in the form of incentive pay, but even those large sums pale in comparison to the total shareholder value that has been destroyed as a result of these disclosures. At its peak, WorldCom's market capitalization exceeded $190 billion, making it, for a time, the most valuable telecommunications services company in the world. Now, WorldCom shares are effectively worthless. Despite a slowdown in the telecom industry, some of the value of those shares might have been preserved had its executives relied on sound management, instead of deceptive accounting, to make their numbers. Who will suffer most from the immense value decline associated with WorldCom and other companies that have deceived their investors? Not the senior executives, most of whom have stashed away enough of their pay to let them spend the rest of their days in comfort. The people who will really suffer are the thousands of employees whose retirement savings were proudly invested in company stock; or the millions of public employees whose pension funds held shares in these companies. Those are the people who will bear the brunt of this value decline. CalPERS, the pension fund set up to invest the retirement savings of 1.3 million public employees in my home State, has estimated that it suffered a $580 million loss on WorldCom stocks and bonds. That means that the average California public employee lost over $440, not including any investments in WorldCom they may have held independently. To give you some perspective on that amount, the amount of money lost by California public employees due to the WorldCom fraud alone is likely to exceed the entire sum of the tax rebate checks they received as part of the President's tax cut last year. In fact, every American who invests in our stock markets will suffer as a result of these scandals, because every scandal further tarnishes the reputation of American corporate honesty for investors around the world. In recent months, those investors have pulled billions of dollars in investments out of our country, further reducing the value of stocks and weakening the dollar. The only way that we can turn this culture around is by fostering a corporate environment that rewards honest management by senior executives and severely punishes fraudulent activities. That is exactly what would be achieved by the bill proposed by Senator Sarbanes. The Sarbanes bill tackles many of the major problem areas associated with recent corporate scandals. Most importantly, the bill would make it much more difficult for public companies to bypass or trample over auditors in attempt to produce inaccurate or deceptive financial statements. For the first time, the Sarbanes bill creates a truly independent accounting oversight board, staffed with objective, unbiased overseers, who can enforce rules and prosecute violators without having to vet their decisions elsewhere. Unlike the Public Oversight Board, which depended on fees from the very auditors it was meant to regulate, this new board will be funded by mandatory fees paid by all public companies. These are fees that cannot be withheld at the whim of those who have the greatest interest in undermining the work of the board. The Sarbanes bill does not stop at the creation of this new board, however. Rather, the bill strengthens areas of the law that have proven inadequate to prevent the fraudulent corporate behavior that has become so prevalent today. The Sarbanes bill prevents auditors from controling the entire financial reporting system at an individual company by both designing the internal audit system, and then purporting to offer an unbiased external audit. The bill will also stiffen the resolve and oversight of board of director audit committees by requiring, among other provisions, that all committee members be independent and that they be given free reign to question auditors without executive officers present. But rather than rely solely on increased oversight, the bill moves to reduce conflicts of interest at their source, by requiring the CEO and CFO of a company that has had to restate its financial accounts to disgorge any bonuses or other incentive pay they received in the year prior to the misstatement. Moreover, under an amendment sponsored by Senator Schumer and myself, company loans to executive officers are now prohibited, sharply limiting the types of ``hidden'' compensation that can be offered to executives without being fully disclosed to shareholders. Our amendment passed by a voice vote and will go a long way toward preventing the types of loan-related abuses prevalent at WorldCom, Global Crossing, and other companies now under investigation by the SEC for loan-related abuses. When Senator Sarbanes drafted this bill, he focused on the single reform that matters most: increased transparency. Unfortunately, we may witness more corporate failures like those of Enron or WorldCom. These are failures that are brought on by over-investment, the accumulation of excessive debt, or an ill-conceived belief in markets or services that never live up to expectations. What we cannot abide by, and what the Sarbanes bill goes a long way toward preventing, is the ability of senior executives to hide those bad decisions in misleading financial statements. By ensuring true auditor oversight, creating meaningful penalties for senior executives who defraud investors, and putting in place new disclosure requirements, this bill will dramatically increase the quality and timeliness of the information available to individual investors. The United States is blessed with the best-regulated markets in the world, and for that we have been rewarded with tremendous foreign investment and a leadership position in world financial markets. A vote in favor of this legislation is a vote to strengthen our position and avoid a wholesale loss of investor confidence that would be perilously difficult to restore.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am very pleased to introduce this bill today along the Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar, chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Our bill is already co-sponsored by Senators Fitzgerald, Cantwell, Wyden, Corzine, Leahy, Durbin, and Boxer. The Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing on this bill yesterday and I understand it is the intentions of the chairman and ranking member to try and have a bill that can be marked up before the recess. The bill closes the loophole that was created when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 which exempted on-line energy and metals trading from regulatory oversight. The bill is supported by: The New York Mercantile Exchange, The Pacific Exchange, Aquila Energy Corporation, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Mid-America Energy Holding Company, Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, Calpine, The Apache Corporation, The American Public Gas Association, The American Public Power Association, The Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Association, The California Municipal Utilities Association, The Consumers Union, The Consumer Federation of America, The Derivatives Study Center, The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association U.S. PIRG, The Transmission Access Policy Study Group, The Sierra Club, and all four FERC Commissioners. This bill could not be more timely in light of what we have learned about the energy sector in the past couple of months and the operations of these energy companies: 1. CMS Energy admitted that 80 percent of its trades were round trip or wash trades and were made simply to increase volume; 2. Reliant admitted to $6.4 billion in wash trades from 1999-2001 which the company characterized as energy swaps; 3. Duke confessed to $2 billion in wash trades and stated that $650 million of these trades were executed on the Inter-Continental Exchange, ICE, and electronic trading facility exempt from CFTC oversight because of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. But electronic exchanges like ICE have no responsibility for trades or wash trades executed on its exchange and does not even have any responsibility for checking that a transaction has been executed. Thus, a company that wanted to manipulate prices or game the market would not have to even execute a single trade. In the past year, 12 of the largest energy companies in the U.S. have lost about $188 billion of capital, accounting for 71 percent of the market value. The credit ratings of several of those energy companies have been severely downgraded; some are at junk bond or near-junk bond status. In May, 2000, a severe energy crisis began in California. Electricity that had typically sold for about $30 a Megawatt hour all of a sudden started selling for 10 times that. This led to the bankruptcy of California's largest utility and the near-bankruptcy of California's second largest utility. It also resulted in overcharges of billions of dollars to California ratepayers and taxpayers. In November, California encountered a natural gas crisis. Natural gas is the main cost component of electricity. At one point gas was selling for $12 per decatherm in San Juan New Mexico and $59 in Southern California when the cost to transport it was less than one dollar. Just about the time Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act exempting electronic energy trading exchanges from oversight, the crisis began spreading to the other western states. For more than six months Oregon, Washington, and the other Western States experienced the same price spikes as California. The entire crisis lasted for more than a year while energy companies like Reliant, Enron, Duke, Williams, and AES enjoyed record revenues and profits. Obviously we are all a bit wiser today about energy markets and about wash trades in particular. Wash trades or round trip trades involve two or more companies plotting together to execute offsetting trades. These trades would be illegal if they were done on NYMEX, the Chicago Merc, or the Pacific Exchange and those exchanges would have the responsibility to report it. However, there is no such reporting or enforcement requirement on electronic exchanges because as I said before, the CFMA created a big loophole. This legislation would ensure that wash trades are subject to full CFTC oversight no matter where they are done. And of course there is Enron which controlled a large share of the energy market while they engaged in activities that were downright illegal. Many of these activities could have been prevented or at least stopped if regulators simply had the proper authority and the will. Let me recap what happened with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. In November, 1999, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, the CFTC and the Department of Treasury produced a study titled Over the Counter Derivative Markets and the Commodity Exchange Act, A Report of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. It was signed by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers, SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt and CFTC Chairman Bill Rainer. The report said that the case had not been made that energy or other tangible commodities should be exempted form CFTC oversight. The report found that because of the immaturity of the energy market, the lack of liquidity in the market and finite supplies, in energy markets, energy markets were more susceptible to manipulation than the deep and liquid financial markets. Recent history has certainly borne that to be correct; these commodities are more subject to manipulation! On June 21, 2000 shortly after the President's Working Group issued its report, the Banking Committee and Agriculture Committee held a hearing on the Report and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Let me read from that committee report: The Commission has reservations about the bill's exclusions of Over the Counter (OTC) derivatives from the Commodities Exchange Act. On this point he bill diverges from the recommendations of the President's Working Group, which limited the proposed exclusions to financial derivatives. The Commission believes the distinction drawn by the Working Group between financial (non-tangible) and non-financial transactions was a sound one and respectfully urges the Committees to give weight to that distinction. And the Senate Agriculture Committee marked up the Commodity Futures Modernization Act consistent with what was in the President's Working Group Report. That version of the bill however, was not reflected in the final provision that passed Congress as part of a much bigger bill at the end of the 106th Congress. I urge my colleagues in Congress to pass this legislation and fix this problem as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am very pleased to introduce this bill today along the Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar, chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Our bill is already co-sponsored by Senators Fitzgerald, Cantwell, Wyden, Corzine, Leahy, Durbin, and Boxer. The Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing on this bill yesterday and I understand it is the intentions of the chairman and ranking member to try and have a bill that can be marked up before the recess. The bill closes the loophole that was created when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 which exempted on-line energy and metals trading from regulatory oversight. The bill is supported by: The New York Mercantile Exchange, The Pacific Exchange, Aquila Energy Corporation, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Mid-America Energy Holding Company, Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, Calpine, The Apache Corporation, The American Public Gas Association, The American Public Power Association, The Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Association, The California Municipal Utilities Association, The Consumers Union, The Consumer Federation of America, The Derivatives Study Center, The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association U.S. PIRG, The Transmission Access Policy Study Group, The Sierra Club, and all four FERC Commissioners. This bill could not be more timely in light of what we have learned about the energy sector in the past couple of months and the operations of these energy companies: 1. CMS Energy admitted that 80 percent of its trades were round trip or wash trades and were made simply to increase volume; 2. Reliant admitted to $6.4 billion in wash trades from 1999-2001 which the company characterized as energy swaps; 3. Duke confessed to $2 billion in wash trades and stated that $650 million of these trades were executed on the Inter-Continental Exchange, ICE, and electronic trading facility exempt from CFTC oversight because of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. But electronic exchanges like ICE have no responsibility for trades or wash trades executed on its exchange and does not even have any responsibility for checking that a transaction has been executed. Thus, a company that wanted to manipulate prices or game the market would not have to even execute a single trade. In the past year, 12 of the largest energy companies in the U.S. have lost about $188 billion of capital, accounting for 71 percent of the market value. The credit ratings of several of those energy companies have been severely downgraded; some are at junk bond or near-junk bond status. In May, 2000, a severe energy crisis began in California. Electricity that had typically sold for about $30 a Megawatt hour all of a sudden started selling for 10 times that. This led to the bankruptcy of California's largest utility and the near-bankruptcy of California's second largest utility. It also resulted in overcharges of billions of dollars to California ratepayers and taxpayers. In November, California encountered a natural gas crisis. Natural gas is the main cost component of electricity. At one point gas was selling for $12 per decatherm in San Juan New Mexico and $59 in Southern California when the cost to transport it was less than one dollar. Just about the time Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act exempting electronic energy trading exchanges from oversight, the crisis began spreading to the other western states. For more than six months Oregon, Washington, and the other Western States experienced the same price spikes as California. The entire crisis lasted for more than a year while energy companies like Reliant, Enron, Duke, Williams, and AES enjoyed record revenues and profits. Obviously we are all a bit wiser today about energy markets and about wash trades in particular. Wash trades or round trip trades involve two or more companies plotting together to execute offsetting trades. These trades would be illegal if they were done on NYMEX, the Chicago Merc, or the Pacific Exchange and those exchanges would have the responsibility to report it. However, there is no such reporting or enforcement requirement on electronic exchanges because as I said before, the CFMA created a big loophole. This legislation would ensure that wash trades are subject to full CFTC oversight no matter where they are done. And of course there is Enron which controlled a large share of the energy market while they engaged in activities that were downright illegal. Many of these activities could have been prevented or at least stopped if regulators simply had the proper authority and the will. Let me recap what happened with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. In November, 1999, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, the CFTC and the Department of Treasury produced a study titled Over the Counter Derivative Markets and the Commodity Exchange Act, A Report of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. It was signed by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers, SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt and CFTC Chairman Bill Rainer. The report said that the case had not been made that energy or other tangible commodities should be exempted form CFTC oversight. The report found that because of the immaturity of the energy market, the lack of liquidity in the market and finite supplies, in energy markets, energy markets were more susceptible to manipulation than the deep and liquid financial markets. Recent history has certainly borne that to be correct; these commodities are more subject to manipulation! On June 21, 2000 shortly after the President's Working Group issued its report, the Banking Committee and Agriculture Committee held a hearing on the Report and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Let me read from that committee report: The Commission has reservations about the bill's exclusions of Over the Counter (OTC) derivatives from the Commodities Exchange Act. On this point he bill diverges from the recommendations of the President's Working Group, which limited the proposed exclusions to financial derivatives. The Commission believes the distinction drawn by the Working Group between financial (non-tangible) and non-financial transactions was a sound one and respectfully urges the Committees to give weight to that distinction. And the Senate Agriculture Committee marked up the Commodity Futures Modernization Act consistent with what was in the President's Working Group Report. That version of the bill however, was not reflected in the final provision that passed Congress as part of a much bigger bill at the end of the 106th Congress. I urge my colleagues in Congress to pass this legislation and fix this problem as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today to strengthen the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In May, 2000 an energy crisis began in California and eventually spread to the other Western States. For about a year, FERC refused to execute its mandate to enforce the provisions of the Federal Power Act which required the Agency to enforce ``just and reasonable'' electricity prices. In May, 2001 Pat Wood became the Chairman of the Commission and under his leadership the Commission has finally begun to aggressively investigate what went wrong in the California and Western energy markets. However, there are still some weaknesses in FERC's authority to investigate problems in energy markets, solicit necessary information and punish wrongdoers. A report by the General Accounting Office, GAO, last month concluded that FERC does not have the necessary legal authority to police competitive energy markets. This legislation is designed to bolster FERC's authority and allow the Agency to levy penalties that will hold market manipulators accountable for violations of the law. This legislation will go a long way toward providing FERC with the resources and legal authority it needs to protect consumers and ensure that energy prices are just and reasonable. My legislation would do five things: 1. It would grant FERC the authority to use monetary penalties on companies that don't comply with requests for information. This is essentially the same authority that the Securities and Exchange Commission has; 2. It would make it easier for FERC to hire the necessary outside help they need including accountants, lawyers, and investigators for investigative purposes; 3. It would eliminate the requirement that FERC receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget before launching an investigation or price discovery of electricity or natural gas markets involving more than 10 companies; 4. It would increase the penalty amounts to $1 million instead of the current $5,000 for violations of the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act; five years instead of the current two for violations of the statute; and, $50,000 per day per violation instead of the current $500 for violations of rules or orders under the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act; and 5. It would increase the Commission's authority to impose civil penalties, it also broadened to all sections of Part II of the Federal Power Act and the penalty amount is increased from $10,000 to $50,000 per violation per day. I continue to support FERC and Chairman Pat Wood in its efforts to stabilize energy prices, and ensure that our energy markets function properly although I believe that much more still needs to be done. But even if FERC has the will, the GAO report correctly points out that it may not have all the necessary tools. It is my hope that this legislation will help by providing FERC the necessary authority to continue to aggressively monitor energy markets and investigate wrongdoing.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today to strengthen the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In May, 2000 an energy crisis began in California and eventually spread to the other Western States. For about a year, FERC refused to execute its mandate to enforce the provisions of the Federal Power Act which required the Agency to enforce ``just and reasonable'' electricity prices. In May, 2001 Pat Wood became the Chairman of the Commission and under his leadership the Commission has finally begun to aggressively investigate what went wrong in the California and Western energy markets. However, there are still some weaknesses in FERC's authority to investigate problems in energy markets, solicit necessary information and punish wrongdoers. A report by the General Accounting Office, GAO, last month concluded that FERC does not have the necessary legal authority to police competitive energy markets. This legislation is designed to bolster FERC's authority and allow the Agency to levy penalties that will hold market manipulators accountable for violations of the law. This legislation will go a long way toward providing FERC with the resources and legal authority it needs to protect consumers and ensure that energy prices are just and reasonable. My legislation would do five things: 1. It would grant FERC the authority to use monetary penalties on companies that don't comply with requests for information. This is essentially the same authority that the Securities and Exchange Commission has; 2. It would make it easier for FERC to hire the necessary outside help they need including accountants, lawyers, and investigators for investigative purposes; 3. It would eliminate the requirement that FERC receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget before launching an investigation or price discovery of electricity or natural gas markets involving more than 10 companies; 4. It would increase the penalty amounts to $1 million instead of the current $5,000 for violations of the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act; five years instead of the current two for violations of the statute; and, $50,000 per day per violation instead of the current $500 for violations of rules or orders under the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act; and 5. It would increase the Commission's authority to impose civil penalties, it also broadened to all sections of Part II of the Federal Power Act and the penalty amount is increased from $10,000 to $50,000 per violation per day. I continue to support FERC and Chairman Pat Wood in its efforts to stabilize energy prices, and ensure that our energy markets function properly although I believe that much more still needs to be done. But even if FERC has the will, the GAO report correctly points out that it may not have all the necessary tools. It is my hope that this legislation will help by providing FERC the necessary authority to continue to aggressively monitor energy markets and investigate wrongdoing.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am voting against this resolution. I support the development of a long-term strategy of storing our Nation's nuclear waste. However, a single storage repository is not the answer to our nuclear waste problem. I have three major concerns about the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository: first, the repository's inadequate storage capacity, second, the environmental risks of storing nuclear waste at the site, and third, the risks of transporting nuclear waste to the site. Based on these factors, I believe it would be a mistake to bring all of our Nation's nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Instead of a single repository, it would be better to develop regional nuclear waste permanent storage facilities which would increase overall storage capacity and reduce risks associated with transporting waste great distances. Today nuclear waste is stored at 131 facilities in 39 States. These facilities hold nearly 47,500 metric tons of nuclear waste. This amount is growing rapidly. Within 40 years, it is estimated that our country will have generated nearly 108,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain repository, as I understand it, is authorized to hold only 70,000 metric tons. So at our current rate of nuclear waste production, we will have generated this amount by the earliest estimated date of the repository's opening in 2010. In fact, we may generate the full 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste before the site ever opens. What is the point of creating a storage site that will be filled to capacity before it even opens? I am very concerned about the environmental risks surrounding the site storage. DOE was supposed to recommend or reject the Yucca Mountain repository with geologic considerations to be the primary criteria. I find it disturbing that the suitability of the Yucca Mountain repository has instead focused on container material. These titanium waste containers are DOE's principal method of providing safety and security of the nuclear waste and repository and ensuring the protection of surrounding areas. Yet how can we be so confident in our support of such containers when we don't know about their longevity and durability? The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which was established by Congress specifically to ensure that a repository adequately protects the public health and the environment and it has voiced similar concerns. Last year, the board termed the technical basis for DOE's repository performance estimates as ``weak to moderate.'' As a result, the NWTRB has limited confidence in current performance estimates generated by the DOE's performance assessment model. The board has found that high temperatures in the DOE's repository design increase uncertainties and decrease confidence in the performance of these metal storage containers. According to Dr. Jared Cohon, the chairman of the board, ``gaps in data and basic understanding cause important uncertainties in the concepts and assumptions on which the DOE's performance estimates are now based.'' The half-life of these titanium storage containers is still unknown. Scientists have found that the first container failures could occur after 10,000 years, although one board member said it was ``hopeless'' to know how long the container would last, given just a few years of research. Perhaps failure could occur much sooner. In comparison, Uranium 235, the basic fuel used by nuclear reactors, has a half-life of 704 million years. It would be simply irresponsible for us to bury such hazardous nuclear waste when we don't have a good idea about how long the containers could hold up. One of the most significant problems found at the site is the amount of subsurface water present under Yucca Mountain. Water promotes corrosion and movement of radioactive material and its presence in a repository is a serious drawback. As the titanium casks erode over time, we could face a potential disaster as this water becomes contaminated and flows into the water table. California counties have expressed their rightful concerns of subsurface water at Yucca Mountain surfacing at populated areas downstream of the site. For instance, Inyo County in California, with a population of 17,945, lies downstream of the proposed repository. Contaminated water could very easily spread from the repository directly into their towns and homes. Death Valley, one of our Nation's ecological and environmental treasures, is also only about 20 miles from the repository. Water contaminated with nuclear waste could destroy one of the jewels of our National Park System. DOE refutes the idea of possible harm of water contamination based on the titanium casks the Department has proposed to store the nuclear waste. Yet in March of 2001, the NWTRB wrote to DOE expressing its concern that important water flow processes around Yucca Mountain remain poorly understood and should be further studied. The board has criticized the lack of critical corrosion data on the titanium casks in the DOE's basic design concept. According to the board, ``We are betting the performance of the systems on the long term performance of these effectively new materials.'' The fact is we simply do not know enough about the durability of these containers and how they will hold up under intense natural conditions for thousands of years. If we are so confident of the safety and durability of these titanium storage casks, why not use them to store nuclear waste at or near existing reactor sites and thereby eliminate the risk of transporting these hazardous materials across the country? The most immediate question that need to be answered, however, is, how will we transport all of our nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain? While some argue that the repository will increase national security by decreasing the number of storage sites, the transportation of nuclear waste to the site would actually create thousands of moving targets. In order to move the Nation's nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain repository, DOE would have to transport thousands of metric tons of nuclear waste across the country and those shipments would take decades just to move the waste that has already been generated. Keep in mind that nuclear power provides a quarter of our Nation's energy needs and we generate hundreds of spent nuclear fuel rods each day and nearly 2,200 metric tons of nuclear waste each year. If we had a way to magically move all of the nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, it might be safer to have a single repository. However, this is not the case and the transportation of nuclear waste poses unnecessary risks for accidents and attacks. According to DOE, it would take an estimated 24 years for the full 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste to be transported to Yucca Mountain. DOE has not yet determined exactly how this nuclear waste would be transported. The Department estimates that it would take 53,000 trips by truck over the proposed 24-year time period. If the nuclear waste traveled by train, that scenario would involve an estimated 10,700 rail shipments. The site is scheduled to open in 2010 according to DOE's earliest predictions and at the end of all shipments in 2034, there would still be: nearly 42,000 metric tons of commercial nuclear waste stored in 63 nuclear power plant sites in 31 States; and about 7,000 metric tons of DOE generated waste stored in 4 states. This is why I believe a single repository is not capable of meeting our long-term nuclear waste storage needs. Such shipments present unnecessary risks in transporting numerous shipments of hazardous materials from New England to Nevada. As a result of this plan, significant amounts of nuclear waste will undoubtedly move through or near populated urban areas, potentially jeopardizing the safety of millions of Americans. And commercial spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power reactors would comprise about 90 percent of the waste shipped to the repository. DOE has acknowledged that this waste is ``usually intensely radioactive.'' According to DOE's Final Environmental Impact Statement, (FEIS) more than 123 million people currently live in 703 counties traversed by DOE's proposed highway routes and 106 million live in counties along DOE's proposed rail routes. Using potential truck and rail transportation routes identified by DOE, the Environmental Working Group, a national environmental research organization, estimated that waste shipments to the Yucca Mountain repository could pass within a mile or less of 14,510 schools, 933 hospitals and the homes of 38.5 million people. When the distance from routes is expanded to 5 miles, waste shipments could pass 36,228 schools, 1,831 hospitals and the homes of 109 million people. Preliminary routes in Southern California slate waste from the Diablo Canyon powerplant to be shipped about 200 miles on a barge to Port Hueneme in suburban Ventura County just north of Los Angeles, which is one of California's five busiest ports and the nation's biggest export site for citrus. These shipments pose potential threats to some of the most densely populated areas in the U.S. Additionally, routine radiation from shipping casks poses a significant health threat to workers handling such shipments. In the most extreme example, motor carrier safety inspectors could receive cumulative doses large enough to increase their risk of cancer death by 10 percent or more and their risk of other serious health effects by 40 percent or more. According to the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, public perception of transportation risks could also result in economic costs to those communities along shipping routes. Even without an accident or incident, property values near these routes could decline by 3 percent or more. In the event of an accident, residential property values along shipping routes could decline between 8 percent and 34 percent, depending on the severity of the accident. DOE takes great pride in its record of safe transportation of hazardous materials for over more than 30 years. During that time, there have been only eight accidents and none of them resulted in the harmful release of radioactive material. However, during that time period, we were moving fewer than 100 shipments per year. Over the next 24 years, there would be an estimated 2,200 shipments per year heading to the Yucca Mountain repository alone. There would also be more than 10,700 cross-country shipments occurring at an average of 450 per year. This enormous increase in shipments would greatly increase potential accidents. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 457,000 large trucks were involved in traffic crashes in the year 2000 alone. According to the FEIS, a very severe highway or rail accident could release radioactive materials from a shipping container, resulting in radiation exposures to members of the public and latent cancer fatalities among the exposed population. The July 2001 Baltimore rail tunnel fire has been cited as an example of the dangers of shipping nuclear waste by train. The fire burned for 3 days with temperatures as high as 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. A single rail cask in such an accident could have released enough radioactive material to contaminate an area of 32 square miles. In addition to the harm inflicting surrounding populations, the FEIS estimates the clean-up costs of such an accident could potentially reach $10 billion. Failure to clean up the contamination of such an accident could cause 4,000 to 28,000 cancer deaths over the next 50 years. Between 200 and 1,400 latent cancer fatalities would be expected from exposures during the first year. A successful terrorist attack using high energy explosives could result in similar destruction and damage. The FEIS concedes that a high-energy explosive device could rupture the wall of a truck cask, leading to the dispersal of contaminants into the environment. A single blast resulting in 90 percent penetration of a truck cask could lead to 300 to 1,800 cancer fatalities. Full perforation of a cask could cause 3,000 to 18,000 cancer fatalities. Cleanup and recovery costs of such an incident would exceed $10 billion. These threats should be taken very seriously and this assessment furthers my belief that the long and complex transportation of nuclear waste to a single site is a threat to our national security. Based on these concerns, I do not believe that Yucca Mountain is the answer to our current nuclear waste security nor our long term nuclear waste storage problem. According to Dr. Victor Gilinsky, a former Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Yucca Mountain is not needed to continue, or even expand, nuclear power use. There is ample opportunity to expand existing, NRC-approved, on-site storage. As he testified before the Senate Energy Committee: the important thing now is to recognize that there is no immediate crisis, that there is time to do this and to do a good job and responsible job in terms of safety and security, and to do it at a much lower cost to taxpayers than Yucca Mountain represents. I believe a regional system will provide us with both immediate and long-term results. Immediate in the sense that we can explore expanding storage at current NRC-approved sites. Long-term in the sense that it will produce a system of regional permanent storage sites that will meet our long-term nuclear waste storage needs. I cannot support a site that does not have the capacity to meet our Nation's long-term nuclear waste storage needs and poses serious risks to our environment and national security. A system of regional storage repositories could eliminate these risks and provide the adequate and safe permanent storage of nuclear waste that our country needs.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for clearing an amendment I introduced with my colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, to prohibit the use of nuclear armed interceptors as part of a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). Senators Levin and Warner have shown tremendous leadership by working hard to address this important issue, and I want to personally thank them for their efforts. I want to comment briefly on the details of the amendment because I feel so strongly, as do my colleagues in the Senate, that both Chambers of Congress move to prohibit nuclear armed interceptors. A nuclear armed interceptor is a defensive missile that uses a nuclear, rather than conventional, explosive tip to destroy its target. It is based on the premise that a large blast will overwhelm all of the components of an enemy missile. The Washington Post reported in April of this year that the Pentagon was pursuing plans to resume research and testing of nuclear armed interceptors as part of a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). I think this would be a great mistake and would endanger the health and safety of all Americans. The Post reported on April 11 that the Defense Science Board, a research body within the Department of Defense, received encouragement from Secretary Rumsfeld to consider using nuclear tipped warheads for a missile defense system. On April 17, Senator Stevens and I, at an Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing, asked General Kadish of the Missile Defense Agency to refute the Washington Post story. He responded that his agency would not conduct research into nuclear warheads. To further clarify the point, we also asked Secretary Rumsfeld to address the allegation in writing. He also assured us the Pentagon would no longer encourage such testing. Inexplicably, in this year's House Armed Services Committee report on the House passed Defense authorization bill, there is language sanctioning nuclear interceptor research. The report states: The Department may investigate other options for ballistic missile defense nuclear armed interceptors, blast fragment war- heads . . . as alternatives to current approaches . . . This troubling development led Senator Stevens and me to introduce today's amendment, which prohibits any funds from being used for nuclear armed interceptors. Our amendment simply states: None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this or any other Act may be used for research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense system. The use of nuclear armed interceptors represents a deeply troubling departure from the missile defense testing that has occurred up to this point. For the past year, the Pentagon has been pursuing a technically problematic approach to missile defense. They have attempted to ``hit a bullet with a bullet.'' This means that the missile defense system has to individually hit each incoming warhead in order to eliminate the total threat. But under this system, the Missile Defense Agency still fails to address the decoy warheads and other countermeasures that force our systems to rapidly determine which is the actual warhead to be targeted and which is simply a decoy. This core dilemma led the Pentagon to explore the concept of using a nuclear armed interceptor to destroy all of the incoming warheads, real and decoy alike. Instead of targeting a particular missile, a nuclear tipped interceptor would be exploded in the vicinity of the missile, ensuring the destruction of the missile and any others objects around it. This approach raises serious questions about the confidence the Missile Defense Agency appears to have in its current ``Hit a Bullet with a Bullet'' plan. But perhaps more importantly, this approach overlooks a laundry list of catastrophic side-effects that would accompany a nuclear blast in the atmosphere. Even a low-yield nuclear blast in the atmosphere would have grave consequences on public health and on the global economy. Atmospheric winds could potentially spread fall-out over American or allied sovereign territory, the very territory we are trying to protect from nuclear attack. Add the possibility of intercepting a chemical or biological warhead, and we exponentially increase the risk of spreading spores or chemical agents over a wide area. The Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) from an overhead nuclear blast would severely disrupt and most likely permanently damage U.S. and foreign satellites. These are the very satellite systems we rely on to provide us with early warning and key intelligence for national security operations. I think we all can see the serious ramifications of pursuing such an ill-advised policy, and I believe that this amendment is needed to prevent us from going down this path. As Senators from two States that could feel the brunt of radiological, chemical or biological fall-out in the event of a missile defense activation, we are compelled to act. But make no mistake about it, every State in the Union faces the specter of contamination. Given the language included in the House bill promoting nuclear intercept research, it is critical the Senate take a leadership role by preventing such research and testing. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and inject some common sense into the debate over the future of missile defense.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution to prohibit employment discrimination in the United States Senate based on sexual orientation. The resolution would amend the Standing Rules of the Senate by adding ``sexual orientation'' to ``race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or state of physical handicap'' in the anti-discrimination provision of rule 42, which governs the Senate's employment practices. I am very pleased that 41 of my colleagues, Senators Specter, Daschle, Dodd, Torriceli, Feingold, Dayton, Stabenow, Durbin, Jeffords, Kennedy, Inouye, Cantwell, Leahy, Wyden, Boxer, Reed, Akaka, Harkin, Clinton, Reid, Murray, Corzine, Bingaman, Mikulski, Bayh, Levin, Wellstone, Kerry, Collins, Lieberman, Landrieu, Edwards, Smith of Oregon, Biden, Schumer, Chafee, Sarbanes, Kohl, Carnahan, Carper, and Nelson of Florida, have joined me in submitting this resolution today. By amending the current rule, it would forbid any Senate member, officer or employee from terminating, refusing to hire, or otherwise discriminating against an individual with respect to promotion, compensation, or any other privilege of employment, on the basis of that individual's sexual orientation. Senate employees currently have no recourse available to them should they become a victim of this type of employment discrimination. If the rules are amended, any Senate employee that encountered discrimination based on their sexual orientation would have the option of reporting it to the Senate Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee could then investigate the claim and recommend discipline for any Senate member, officer or employee found to have violated the rule. Unfortuantely, the Senate is already well behind other establishments of the U.S. Government in this area of anti-discrimination. By 1996, at least 13 cabinet level agencies, including the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Energy, in addition to the General Accounting Office, General Services Administration, Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Reserve System, Office of Personnel Management, and the White House had already issued policy statements forbidding sexual orientation discrimination. In 1998, Executive Order 13087 was issued to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in the Federal executive branch, including civilian employees of the military departments and sundry other governmental entities. That Executive order now covers approximately 2 million Federal civilian workers, yet, four years later, there are still employees of the United States Senate that are unprotected. In taking this step toward addressing discrimination, the Senate would join not only the Executive Branch, but also 294 Fortune 500 companies, 23 State governments and 252 local governments that have already prohibited workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Currently, at least 68 Senators have already adopted written policies for their congressional offices indicating that sexual orientation is not a factor in their employment decisions. Now, I urge my colleagues to join me by making this policy universal for the Senate, rather than relying on a patchwork of protection that only covers some of the Senate's employees.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the resolution. Before I do, I know Senator Landrieu would like to speak and perhaps others. Perhaps I could offer a unanimous consent agreement that directly following me--does Senator Burns wish to speak?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise as a Senator from California, a member of the Judiciary Committee, and one who has been trying to hold together the Ninth Circuit. I find this decision, at best, very embarrassing--embarrassing because perhaps the court doesn't know, but our coins have contained ``in God we trust'' for a century and a half. This was put into action by the Congress in 1954, almost 50 years ago. So we have had reference to God on our coins for a century and a half and reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance for over a half century. In 30 years of public life, I have never had an objection from anyone about either. When I heard about this decision, knowing how Senator Burns has felt about the Ninth Circuit, I quickly looked to see who the judges were. I found that one is a Nixon judge, one is a Carter judge, and the dissenting judge was a George Bush, Sr., judge. I can only say that I would be hopeful that the full Ninth Circuit would take up this matter and straighten it out, and, if they do not, that it goes rapidly on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that the Supreme Court of the United States straightens it out. From the beginning of our country, God has always played a role. All you have to do is look at some of the remaining churches in the Thirteen Colonies to know that God has always played a role in the foundation and the continuation of our Nation. For the Ninth Circuit to suddenly say that it is unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegiance to make reference that we are one nation under God is incomprehensible to many of us. So our remedy must rest with the remainder of the Ninth Circuit. For me, it is going to be interesting to see whether they will measure up to this challenge or whether they will let a three-judge panel speak for them. I strongly urge that, if they feel as strongly as the Members of this Senate do, they sit en banc and take a look at this matter. If not, it certainly should go to the Supreme Court. I can only say this Senator is embarrassed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That Senator Burns, and then Senator Landrieu, and Senator Allen have 5 minutes each.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Not very long for me.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reiterate my steadfast and unwavering support for Amtrak. I believe that President Bush, Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta, Amtrak President David Gunn, and the Congress need to work together immediately to prevent our passenger rail system from grinding to a halt and stranding millions of commuters coast to coast. Amtrak's passenger rail service is an essential link in our transportation system and our economy. Every day Americans use Amtrak and local commuter rail systems that depend on Amtrak to get to and from work. And as we approach the July Fourth holiday, more and more Americans are relying on Amtrak trains for their vacation travel, especially this year because of security changes at our Nation's airports. I cannot think of a worse time for Amtrak to have run out of money and I find it unconscionable that Members of Congress and the President are not unified to see that our trains continue to run. What will happen if Amtrak shuts down? You can be sure the roads will jam up even more and air travel will become an even greater headache. I agree with Secretary Mineta when he said Monday night that the burden is not on President Bush alone to save the rail system from bankruptcy. However, it is important to point out that President Bush alone can keep Amtrak out of bankruptcy by announcing today that he will approve the company's application for a $200 million loan guaranty and support an additional appropriation of $200 million in the supplemental appropriations bill that is now in conference negotiations. Here is how I believe we must respond to the current situation. First, I believe the $200 million emergency loan guaranty that Amtrak needs to keep the trains running must be approved immediately. This $200 million will allow Amtrak to again find private financing that has dried up over the past several months because of the company's deteriorating financial condition. Second, the members of the conference committee on the supplemental appropriations bill are trying to include a $200 million emergency appropriation for Amtrak. If this bill can emerge from conference negotiations this week and if the President agrees to sign the legislation, the funds will get to Amtrak before the July Fourth holiday. Third, I have joined many of my colleagues in a commitment to work for $1.2 billion for Amtrak in fiscal year 2003. This is the amount Amtrak needs and I believe it is the amount Congress should deliver. I cannot understand why President Bush continues to stand by his paltry budget request of $521 million and threaten to veto the Transportation appropriations bill if more than that amount is provided to Amtrak. Fourth, I believe the Senate should take up Senator Hollings' legislation to fund Amtrak for the next 5 years. The National Defense Rail Act would authorize $4.6 billion annually from 2003 to 2007 for passenger rail service. The legislation, which passed the Commerce Committee by a vote of 20-3 in April would fund rail security improvements, high speed rail development, and operational costs for existing rail routes. I believe Congress must take each of these four steps to preserve and improve Amtrak. I strongly believe that Amtrak is not a failure, it is the government that has failed Amtrak. If we do not properly fund our rail system, how do we expect it to thrive? Since 1971, when Amtrak was founded, only $25 billion has been spent on passenger rail, compared to over $750 billion that has been invested in highways and aviation. The Federal Government has made a commitment to fund road construction and expand aviation capacity, but we have always come up short to provide fair funding for our rail system. The Federal Government provided $15 billion in payments and loan guaranties to aid the airlines after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Why can't we provide $200 million to keep our trains running? Imagine the chaos that will ensue if Amtrak does shutdown this summer. There will be even more traffic on our roads and air travel will slow down if trains are not an option for commuters heading to work or travelers on vacation. On Monday, Senator Boxer and I wrote President Bush to ask him to approve Amtrak's $200 million loan guaranty. This letter illustrates how important Amtrak is to California and why a shutdown would threaten the State's economy. As we mention in the letter, last week a transportation think tank declared southern California and the Bay Area as the two urban areas of the country with the longest traffic delays. Californians do not need any more gridlock. Yet if Amtrak shuts down, thousands of people in California who depend on Amtrak service every day will be stranded. Amtrak trains that travel throughout the State and regional commuter trains could both grid to a halt if the $200 million loan guaranty is not forthcoming. Since most rail lines in California are run by Amtrak or depend on Amtrak, everything is in jeopardy. These include three Amtrak routes funded by the State and the Federal Government: 1. the Capitol Corridor route between San Jose and Auburn; 2. the San Joaquin route between Oakland and Bakersfield; 3. the Pacific Surfliner route between San Diego and San Luis Obispo. These are three of the most successful routes in the United States. In fact, all three are among the top five intercity rail corridors and the Pacific Surfliner is the fastest growing route in the nation. Overall the State of California has added 28 new daily trains since 1995 and over 1.5 million new passengers. But a shutdown will also threaten some of California's largest regional transportation systems including: 1. Caltrain, the rail service between San Francisco and San Jose 2. Metrolink, Southern California's regional transit system 3. The Coaster, San Diego County's regional train. In fact, on Monday Metrolink passengers in Southern California found these flyers on their seats. The flyer updates commuters on the imminent Amtrak shutdown and tells them to ``explore other commute options.'' This week I also received a letter from the North County Transit District on the impact an Amtrak shutdown will have on San Diego County's Coaster Commuter Rail Service. It is clear to me that a shutdown of Amtrak will be devastating for rail passengers across the Nation. I believe we must act immediately to avoid it. I urge President Bush to provide a $200 million loan guaranty to prevent a shutdown of Amtrak service in California and the rest of the country. I ask unanimous consent to print additional material in the Record.