Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Intelligence Community Leadership Act of 2002. This legislation creates the position of Director of National Intelligence to lead a true intelligence community and to coordinate our intelligence and anti-terrorism efforts and help assure that the sort of communication problems that prevented the various elements of our intelligence community from working together effectively before September 11 never happen again. While this bill will certainly not solve every problem within the intelligence community, I believe it to be a necessary first step towards getting our intelligence house in order. The National Security Act of 1947, which created the bulk of our cold war era national security apparatus, created both the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of Central Intelligence, of which the CIA is but one component, as two positions occupied by one person. As Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the person in this position is the CEO of the Agency charged with collecting human intelligence, centrally analyzing all intelligence collected by the U.S. government, and conducting covert action. As head of the intelligence community, which also includes the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the intelligence-gathering elements of the FBI, as well as others, this person is responsible for coordinating a multitude of agencies and harnessing their efforts to secure the overall needs of U.S. national security. Although this structure served as well enough in the cold war, it is, in my view, far from perfect, and, put bluntly, I do not believe that giving both jobs to one person makes sense. Moreover, just as the particular needs of the superpower rivalry of the cold war drove the national security structure and apparatus put into place by the National Security Act of 1947, so, too, should the intelligence and anti-terrorism challenges that our country now faces in the post-9-11 world drive the creation of new national security structures adequate to the new challenge. The President, in proposing the creation of the Department of Homeland Security has addressed part of this challenge. But the administration's plan does not do enough to address the need to better coordinate our intelligence and anti-terrorism efforts. To start to address these problems the Intelligence Community Leadership Act of 2002 splits the current position of Director of Central Intelligence, currently held by one individual, who is tasked with running the CIA and the intelligence community as a whole, into two positions: a Director of National Intelligence, DNI, to lead the Intelligence Community and a Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to run the CIA. It may appear somewhat paradoxical to argue that in order to assure closer and better coordination within and across our intelligence community the current position of the Director of Central Intelligence should be split, but this is, in fact, the case. As a practical matter, the demands of these two full time jobs on the time and attention of any person, no matter how skilled in management, are overwhelming. Indeed, running the intelligence community and running the CIA are both important enough to be full time jobs. That was true before September 11, and it is especially true after September 11. Even if one person could handle both jobs and reconcile the inherent conflicts, there would remain the perception that he or she is favoring either the community or the Agency. That is not a formula which is well-suited to lead to a seamless and fully integrated intelligence community providing optimum analytic product to national decision makers or assuring that critical intelligence missions are properly allocated and resourced. Specifically, then, this legislation would create the new position of Director of National Intelligence, DNI, a new independent head of the intelligence community with the proper and necessary authority to coordinate activities, direct priorities, and create the budget for our nation's national intelligence community. The DNI would be responsible for all of the functions now performed by the Director of Central Intelligence in his role as head of the intelligence community, a separate individual would be Director of the CIA. Nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serving a ten-year term, the DNI would be insulated from the vagaries of politics and specifically empowered to create the national intelligence budget in conjunction with the various intelligence agencies within our government. The DNI would be able to transfer personnel and funds between intelligence agencies as necessary to carry out the core functions of the intelligence community, without the need to seek permission from individual agency heads. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, DCIA, freed from the double burden as head of the intelligence community, would then be able to concentrate on the critical missions of the CIA alone: Assure the collection of intelligence from human sources, and that intelligence is properly correlated, evaluated, and disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to decision makers. The critical policy and resource decisions of the President's proposed Department of Homeland Defense will only be as good as the intelligence which informs those decisions. Whatever the other preliminary lessons we may draw from the ongoing inquiry into the September 11 attacks, one thing is perfectly clear: we need to better coordinate our intelligence and anti-terrorism efforts. If the new Department, and the President and Members of Congress, are going to be able to get the sort of intelligence we need to both safeguard our citizens and protect American national security interests, we need to address the structural problems that exist today with our intelligence community. I believe a first step in finding a solution to this problem is relatively simple, enact legislation that would require the head of the intelligence community and the head of the CIA to be two different people. That is what this legislation would do, and I urge my colleagues to join me both on this legislation, and in considering other reforms which may also be necessary to reformulate of intelligence community to meet the challenges of the new era.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Intelligence Community Leadership Act of 2002. This legislation creates the position of Director of National Intelligence to lead a true intelligence community and to coordinate our intelligence and anti-terrorism efforts and help assure that the sort of communication problems that prevented the various elements of our intelligence community from working together effectively before September 11 never happen again. While this bill will certainly not solve every problem within the intelligence community, I believe it to be a necessary first step towards getting our intelligence house in order. The National Security Act of 1947, which created the bulk of our cold war era national security apparatus, created both the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of Central Intelligence, of which the CIA is but one component, as two positions occupied by one person. As Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the person in this position is the CEO of the Agency charged with collecting human intelligence, centrally analyzing all intelligence collected by the U.S. government, and conducting covert action. As head of the intelligence community, which also includes the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the intelligence-gathering elements of the FBI, as well as others, this person is responsible for coordinating a multitude of agencies and harnessing their efforts to secure the overall needs of U.S. national security. Although this structure served as well enough in the cold war, it is, in my view, far from perfect, and, put bluntly, I do not believe that giving both jobs to one person makes sense. Moreover, just as the particular needs of the superpower rivalry of the cold war drove the national security structure and apparatus put into place by the National Security Act of 1947, so, too, should the intelligence and anti-terrorism challenges that our country now faces in the post-9-11 world drive the creation of new national security structures adequate to the new challenge. The President, in proposing the creation of the Department of Homeland Security has addressed part of this challenge. But the administration's plan does not do enough to address the need to better coordinate our intelligence and anti-terrorism efforts. To start to address these problems the Intelligence Community Leadership Act of 2002 splits the current position of Director of Central Intelligence, currently held by one individual, who is tasked with running the CIA and the intelligence community as a whole, into two positions: a Director of National Intelligence, DNI, to lead the Intelligence Community and a Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to run the CIA. It may appear somewhat paradoxical to argue that in order to assure closer and better coordination within and across our intelligence community the current position of the Director of Central Intelligence should be split, but this is, in fact, the case. As a practical matter, the demands of these two full time jobs on the time and attention of any person, no matter how skilled in management, are overwhelming. Indeed, running the intelligence community and running the CIA are both important enough to be full time jobs. That was true before September 11, and it is especially true after September 11. Even if one person could handle both jobs and reconcile the inherent conflicts, there would remain the perception that he or she is favoring either the community or the Agency. That is not a formula which is well-suited to lead to a seamless and fully integrated intelligence community providing optimum analytic product to national decision makers or assuring that critical intelligence missions are properly allocated and resourced. Specifically, then, this legislation would create the new position of Director of National Intelligence, DNI, a new independent head of the intelligence community with the proper and necessary authority to coordinate activities, direct priorities, and create the budget for our nation's national intelligence community. The DNI would be responsible for all of the functions now performed by the Director of Central Intelligence in his role as head of the intelligence community, a separate individual would be Director of the CIA. Nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serving a ten-year term, the DNI would be insulated from the vagaries of politics and specifically empowered to create the national intelligence budget in conjunction with the various intelligence agencies within our government. The DNI would be able to transfer personnel and funds between intelligence agencies as necessary to carry out the core functions of the intelligence community, without the need to seek permission from individual agency heads. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, DCIA, freed from the double burden as head of the intelligence community, would then be able to concentrate on the critical missions of the CIA alone: Assure the collection of intelligence from human sources, and that intelligence is properly correlated, evaluated, and disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to decision makers. The critical policy and resource decisions of the President's proposed Department of Homeland Defense will only be as good as the intelligence which informs those decisions. Whatever the other preliminary lessons we may draw from the ongoing inquiry into the September 11 attacks, one thing is perfectly clear: we need to better coordinate our intelligence and anti-terrorism efforts. If the new Department, and the President and Members of Congress, are going to be able to get the sort of intelligence we need to both safeguard our citizens and protect American national security interests, we need to address the structural problems that exist today with our intelligence community. I believe a first step in finding a solution to this problem is relatively simple, enact legislation that would require the head of the intelligence community and the head of the CIA to be two different people. That is what this legislation would do, and I urge my colleagues to join me both on this legislation, and in considering other reforms which may also be necessary to reformulate of intelligence community to meet the challenges of the new era.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to express my support for the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Exposure to terrorism is not only a threat to our national security, but is also a threat to the United States and global economies. The full extent of insured losses from September 11 has been estimated at $70 billion. There is no doubt that these terrorist attacks have resulted in the most catastrophic loss in the history of property and casualty insurance. Even though the insurance industry committed to pay losses resulting from the attacks, they have indicated a reluctance to continue offering terrorism insurance because the risk of future losses is unknown. I and my staff have heard from my constituents in California, who have already suffered from this constriction of the terrorism insurance industry. Some are insurance providers, who have written to say that they are afraid that their companies will not survive if they are forced to endure another terrorist event without a Federal backstop for terrorism reinsurance. Some are businesses whose premiums have risen so drastically in the past nine months that they too, risk insolvency. San Francisco's own Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District, which manages the Golden Gate Bridge, recently had to renew its insurance policy. The new policy costs $1.1 million per year for $50 million in coverage which does not include terrorism coverage, despite assertions by Governor Davis last year that the bridge was a target for the terrorist attacks. Last year's policy cost $125,000 for $125 million in coverage, including coverage for damage due to a terrorist act. This legislation will provide desperately needed stability to the terrorism insurance market. It provides a Federal backstop so that the industry can have the confidence to issue new policies, and it enables financial services providers to again finance new commercial property acquisitions and construction projects. This bill also has some important limits on Federal exposure to losses. First, it is designed to be temporary. The length of the program will be one year, with the option for the Secretary of the Treasury to extend it an additional year. Second, the bill clarifies that the Federal Government does not bear any responsibility for insurance losses due to punitive damage awards. Punitive damages awards are issued when a defendant has acted in a willful and malicious manner. I don't believe the American taxpayer should be left holding the bag if such judgments are awarded. It is my hope that the passage of this legislation will enable the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District, as well as other, similarly affected, companies and organizations, in California and across the Nation, to obtain the terrorism insurance coverage they need to adequately protect their patrons during these uncertain times.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce this legislation today to authorize the Interior Department to provide critical services to three national parks in my home State of California. With the passage of this bill, Yosemite, Manzanar, and Golden Gate National Parks will receive the Federal support needed to continue to offer a broad range of services to the millions of tourists and Californians who visit these national treasures each year. This bill meets four distinct needs in these parks: it authorizes the Interior Secretary to designate Federal emergency funds to small schools in Yosemite National Park, allows the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System, YARTS, to continue operating and extends the Manzanar and Golden Gate National Recreational Area, GGNRA, Advisory Commissions for ten more years. The first component of this bill provides critical funds to three small schools nestled in the heart of Yosemite National Park. Approximately 126 children of park service employees are taught in the quaint one-room buildings of Wawoma, El Portal, and Yosemite Valley elementary schools. The remote location of these schools, along with their small sizes and California's unique method for funding education, have all contributed to the schools amassing a combined deficit of $241,000. In their efforts to continue to provide basic educational services to students, the schools have had to cut supplemental instruction that would normally be available to students taught outside of the Park. In light of these facts, this bill allows the Interior Secretary to assist these schools if their combined state funding falls below $75,000. It also clarifies how funds will be used by limiting allocations to providing general upkeep, maintenance, and classroom instruction. Furthermore, this legislation allows the Park Service to allot federal funds for the continuing operation of the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System, YARTS. YARTS is a bus service that gives visitors the option of taking a free shuttle through Yosemite National Park instead of driving on their own. Since it began operating in 2000, this service has played a crucial role in improving visitor accessibility to the Park's attractions, alleviating traffic congestion on access roads and reducing the amount of air pollution emitted by incoming cars. The Federally funded demonstration project that allowed YARTS to offer services on a temporary basis expired in May and since then, YARTS has leveraged local funds to ensure that services were not discontinued. Both the Park Service and YARTS are supportive of continuing their mutually beneficial agreement. This legislation would do just that by taking the burden off local entities and providing the necessary assistance that this service needs. The last component of this bill will extend the advisory commissions of the Manzanar Historic Site and Golden Gate National Recreation Area for ten more years. Both of these commissions have active committees that represent a wide range of user groups from bicyclists to bird watchers to outdoor enthusiasts. They provide a vital communications link between the Park Service and the surrounding communities that enjoy the attractions that these national sites have to offer. Without these commissions, the Park Service would be hard pressed to provide the same level of service and attention to the broad interests and diverse communities that they serve. I continue to be a strong advocate for public involvement in Park Service decisions. I believe that these commissions have been essential in ensuring that the Park Service upholds its commitment to allow community participation in its decision making process, particularly when it comes to contentious issues. California's national parks are truly invaluable, each one of the parks that this bill supports offers an opportunity for visitors and residents to enjoy unique national habitats and open spaces. This legislation mark the beginning of a process that I hope will result in the Park Service and the community working together not only to protect the environment, but also the interests of the nearby communities. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I stand to honor three outstanding California students: Michael Crowe, Jennifer McWilliams, and Heather Scott. These students are finalists in the National History Day Contest. They are also among 15 students who have been selected from a national pool of 700,000 to display their work at the White House Visitors Center this week. National History Day is a year-long event in which students prepare exhibits, papers, documentaries, and performances to explain not only the ``who'' and the ``what'' of history but also the ``why.'' In his performance ``Castro, Cuba, and the Revolution the World Will Never Forget,'' Michael Crowe, a seventh grader at Fruitvale Junior High School in Bakersfield, explores the relations between the United States, Cuba, and Russia during the Cold War. As part of his research, Michael spoke to former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and to CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite. He also gained a unique perspective on the era by interviewing the children of Fidel Castro and Nikita Khrushchev. Working together, eighth graders Jennifer McWilliams and Heather Scott, who also attend Fruitvale Junior High, created an exhibit entitled ``On the Trail to Revolution: Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnam War.'' In addition to speaking with Robert McNamara and Walter Cronkite, the girls interviewed veterans, refugees, and a Vietnamese expatriate who lived in Vietnam during the war to understand the conflict and its effects on our Nation. Like other National History Day participants, Michael, Jennifer, and Heather chose their topics last fall. They spent a year conducting extensive research and analyzing past events. Michael, Jennifer, and Heather then joined over half a million other students and entered their National History Day projects in local competitions. From these local competitions, approximately 2,000 participants are chosen to proceed to the national finals. There, they compete for cash and scholarships. Michael, Jennifer, and Heather are among this year's finalists, an accomplishment remarkable in itself. However, these students also demonstrated great enthusiasm and superior effort while completing their projects. This earned them the privilege of exhibiting their work at the White House Visitors Center. Michael, Jennifer, and Heather performed truly first-rate research and demonstrated initiative and dedication beyond their years. Their projects are of exceptional quality. These young people have earned my sincere admiration, and I congratulate them on their achievements.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families, be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Newborn Screening: Increasing Options and Awareness,'' during the session of the Senate on Friday, June 14, 2002, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy and DeWine in support of legislation to empower the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to regulate tobacco products. During my time in the Senate, I have become very involved with cancer. I am the Co-Chair of the Senate Cancer Caucus and the Vice- Chair of the National Dialogue on Cancer, which is Chaired by former President and Barbara Bush. The cancer community is united in the belief that the single most important preventive measure is to place tobacco products under the regulatory control of the FDA. I stand behind the cancer community and express the same belief. Smoking causes one-third of all cancers, and is the cause of approximately 165,000 deaths annually. I firmly believe that cancer cannot be conquered without addressing smoking and the use of tobacco products. Smoking results in death or disability for over half of tobacco users, according to the Centers for Disease Control, CDC. Smoking costs the health care system over $70 billion annually. Over the past two decades, we have learned that tobacco companies have manipulated the level of nicotine in cigarettes to increase the number of people addicted to their product. There are more than 40 chemicals in tobacco smoke that cause cancer in humans and animals, according to the CDC. Tobacco smoke has toxic components, as well as tar, carbon monoxide and other dangerous additives. It is long past time to reduce the addictive nature of cigarettes and curtail the marketing of these products to young people. I believe that empowering the FDA to regulate tobacco will help do that. The U.S. Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have unequivocally demonstrated that, for example, anti- smoking campaigns can reduce smoking, a major cause of cancer. California is a good example: My state started an aggressive tobacco control program in 1989 and throughout the 1990s, tobacco use dropped at two to three times faster than the rest of the country. Ninety percent of adult smokers begin before age 18 and every day, 3,000 young people become smokers. This bill will provide meaningful regulation by the Food and Drug Administration of the content and marketing of tobacco products, especially the addicting and carcinogenic components. Dr. C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General, and Dr. David Kessler, former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in 1997 report, cited FDA and other studies and said: Nicotine in cigarettes and smokeless tobacco has the same pharmacological effects as other drugs that FDA has traditionally regulated . . . nicotine is extremely addictive . . . and the vast majority of people who use nicotine- containing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco do so to satisfy their craving for the pharmacological effects of nicotine; that is, to satisfy their drug-dependence or addiction. They go to recommend that the ``FDA should continue to have authority to regulate all areas of nicotine, as well as other constituents and ingredients, and that authority should be made completely explicit.'' I am pleased that to note that even the Philip Morris Companies has acknowledged the need for FDA to regulate tobacco. On their website, they say: We believe federal legislation that includes granting FDA authority to regulate tobacco products could effectively address many of the complex tobacco issues that concern the public, the public health community and us. It is long past time to reduce the addictive nature of cigarettes and curtail the marketing of these products to young people. This bill gives FDA the power to regulate tobacco products' content, design, sale, and marketing. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy and DeWine in support of legislation to empower the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to regulate tobacco products. During my time in the Senate, I have become very involved with cancer. I am the Co-Chair of the Senate Cancer Caucus and the Vice- Chair of the National Dialogue on Cancer, which is Chaired by former President and Barbara Bush. The cancer community is united in the belief that the single most important preventive measure is to place tobacco products under the regulatory control of the FDA. I stand behind the cancer community and express the same belief. Smoking causes one-third of all cancers, and is the cause of approximately 165,000 deaths annually. I firmly believe that cancer cannot be conquered without addressing smoking and the use of tobacco products. Smoking results in death or disability for over half of tobacco users, according to the Centers for Disease Control, CDC. Smoking costs the health care system over $70 billion annually. Over the past two decades, we have learned that tobacco companies have manipulated the level of nicotine in cigarettes to increase the number of people addicted to their product. There are more than 40 chemicals in tobacco smoke that cause cancer in humans and animals, according to the CDC. Tobacco smoke has toxic components, as well as tar, carbon monoxide and other dangerous additives. It is long past time to reduce the addictive nature of cigarettes and curtail the marketing of these products to young people. I believe that empowering the FDA to regulate tobacco will help do that. The U.S. Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have unequivocally demonstrated that, for example, anti- smoking campaigns can reduce smoking, a major cause of cancer. California is a good example: My state started an aggressive tobacco control program in 1989 and throughout the 1990s, tobacco use dropped at two to three times faster than the rest of the country. Ninety percent of adult smokers begin before age 18 and every day, 3,000 young people become smokers. This bill will provide meaningful regulation by the Food and Drug Administration of the content and marketing of tobacco products, especially the addicting and carcinogenic components. Dr. C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General, and Dr. David Kessler, former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in 1997 report, cited FDA and other studies and said: Nicotine in cigarettes and smokeless tobacco has the same pharmacological effects as other drugs that FDA has traditionally regulated . . . nicotine is extremely addictive . . . and the vast majority of people who use nicotine- containing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco do so to satisfy their craving for the pharmacological effects of nicotine; that is, to satisfy their drug-dependence or addiction. They go to recommend that the ``FDA should continue to have authority to regulate all areas of nicotine, as well as other constituents and ingredients, and that authority should be made completely explicit.'' I am pleased that to note that even the Philip Morris Companies has acknowledged the need for FDA to regulate tobacco. On their website, they say: We believe federal legislation that includes granting FDA authority to regulate tobacco products could effectively address many of the complex tobacco issues that concern the public, the public health community and us. It is long past time to reduce the addictive nature of cigarettes and curtail the marketing of these products to young people. This bill gives FDA the power to regulate tobacco products' content, design, sale, and marketing. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I listened to the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts speak on the cloning issue. I thought it might be a good opportunity to offer a few thoughts on that issue. When one says cloning, most people automatically think of human cloning. They don't know that there is an aspect of it which is called nuclear transplantation or stem cell research. The two issues become somewhat blurred. In fact, if you ask people, do they think stem cell research should proceed, the answer you get invariably, once they understand it, is yes. I deeply believe that stem cell research today in America is one of the brightest scientific fields we know of and offers unparalleled hope and opportunity for so many victims of a myriad of chronic, debilitating, and often fatal diseases. It is the bright rainbow out there in medical research. I understand last night the Senator from Kansas placed an amendment before the body. I rise to indicate my strong opposition for that amendment. As I understand it, it would prevent stem cell research from going ahead. I also know there is discussion in the Halls of this distinguished body about presenting legislation for a 2-year moratorium on both human cloning and stem cell research. I would oppose that as well. What would that say to an ALS victim who maybe has 5 years to live with the understanding that all research which could be of help to that victim will be stopped for 2 years? It is a mistake. It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It should not happen. A number of us, including the Presiding Officer, have put together a bill on a bipartisan basis which satisfies the overwhelming majority of the people in America as well as a substantial majority of this body. It says: We recognize the fact that the cloning of a human being is unacceptable. It is immoral, and it should not be done. Therefore, our legislation would make it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to clone or attempt to clone a human being, without exception. It would establish a fine of $1 million or three times any profits made, whichever is greater, on any person who clones or attempts to clone a human being. The financial penalty is in addition to the 10- year prison term. It is very strong. It is definitive on making the cloning of a human being illegal and subject to a 10-year prison sentence and strong fines. The beauty of our legislation is that it would also allow this most promising form of stem cell research, somatic cell nuclear transplantation, to be conducted on a human egg for up to 14 days only, under strict standards and Federal regulation. This 14-day requirement is consistent with the standard established in the United Kingdom and recommended by the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning. There is precedent for it. The reason for 14 days is to limit any research before the so-called primitive streak can take over that egg. This stem cell research can only take place on an unfertilized egg. This is important because many of the opponents of stem cell research say: Aha, this is an organism capable of being a living being. It is no different than a clump of blood cells. They are alive. Those blood cells are not capable of becoming a human being. Skin cells are alive. They are not capable of becoming a human being, nor are any cells in the human body capable of that. An unfertilized egg is not capable of becoming a human being. Therefore, we limit stem cell research to unfertilized eggs. We would ban profiteering and coercion by requiring that all egg donations for this stem cell research be voluntary, and that women who donate eggs can only be compensated minimally--large payments to induce donation would be prohibited. We would prohibit the purchase or sale of unfertilized eggs, something called oocytes or blastocysts. We would require that nuclear transplantation occur in laboratories, completely separate from labs that engage in invitro fertilization, to prevent a ``blurring of the lines,'' to avoid the risk that eggs used in legitimate and important nuclear transplantation research would then be implanted in a woman. We would prohibit the export of eggs that have undergone nuclear transplantation to any foreign country that does not ban human cloning. This prohibition is designed to avoid the risk that valuable research in the United States will result in a human clone anywhere in the world. We include strong ethics requirements that mandate informed consent by egg donors, review of any nuclear transplantation research by an ethics board, and safety and privacy protection. And we have applied to this the strict Federal regulations that are appropriate in this area. Any researcher who violates the bill's ethics requirements--even without attempting to clone a human being and becoming subject to the 10-year prison term and $1 million fine--will face civil penalties of up to $250,000 per violation. So the legislation that you, Senator Hatch, Senator Specter, Senator Harkin, Senator Thurmond, and myself, in a bipartisan way, have put together, we believe, offers this body the soundest approach to make human cloning illegal and, yet, to permit stem cell research to go ahead only on an unfertilized egg, only up to 14 days with strict ethical and Federal regulatory standards; to prohibit export to any country that permits human cloning; to separate it from in vitro fertilization, so there can be no blurring of the lines. I think it is a bill that is well thought out, a bill that will stand the test of time and, most importantly, it is a bill that, while prohibiting the cloning of the human, will permit this bright rainbow of research to go forward. Mr. President, you and I know that today there are 90,000 people awaiting organs or tissue replacement. We know that 4,000 people a year die because they didn't get it or because their body rejects that organ. Let's talk about what stem cell research is. You have a human egg. That egg is unfertilized. Before it exists for 14 days, its nucleus is withdrawn. Into that space of the nucleus in this egg is injected the DNA from a sick person--a person who may have cancer, or ALS, or a brittle child who may be subject to amputation, blindness or death; it could be a Parkinson's patient or a burn patient. That egg is then forced to differentiate. As it goes through that period, it then can be encouraged to grow into tissues, or an organ, which then, when given to the sick person, there will be no rejection of that tissue or that organ. It also can be used with blood. It also can be used for cancer patients. I cannot stress too much, when we get to the actual debate, there is anecdote after anecdote of individuals who have lost hope, for whom stem cell research gives back that hope. We have 40 Nobel laureates supporting us. We have hundreds of patient advocacy groups all across this Nation supporting us. We have the hopes and dreams of hundreds of thousands of people who are otherwise condemned to a life of disability. Mr. President, you and I stood at a press conference with Christopher Reeve, one of America's great and talented human beings. We listened to him plead to be able to go ahead because this is the first time that, if you have had your spine severed, there is an opportunity to regenerate, to do something that has never been done in history--to give a paraplegic or a quadriplegic the opportunity to walk again. In the Judiciary Committee, we heard testimony from a young woman by the name of Chris Golden. She was an Arlington, VA, police officer and a marathon runner. She was out running and she was hit by a car and her spine was severed. All of her dreams and hopes of continuing in the Arlington Police Department and of running once again were severed. She says she now hopes and dreams that one day she will wake up and they will have found a treatment that can regenerate her spinal system. Instead, today she wakes up to a wheelchair, and she even has a problem being able to brush her teeth. There is story after story of people who have lost hope and, because of this new scientific frontier, they can have hope again. Life is for the living. It is important to improve that life. I cannot understand how people want to resist this. I cannot understand how they would prevent stem cell research. I cannot understand how they would say an unfertilized egg is something we have to protect, when women lose hundreds of these every month. It makes no sense. It is arbitrary; it is capricious; it is unscientific; it is wrong. And, yes, if we know of hundreds of thousands of suffering Americans who might be helped, it is also immoral. So those of us who have put together this legislation believe it will stand the test of time. We are very close today to that 60-vote necessity to move ahead with it. So I am hopeful that sometime during next week we will be able to say, yes, in fact we have the 60 votes and, yes, in fact the Senate of the United States of America is going to stand tall to cross this frontier of stem cell research and be able to offer the hope and the dream of a good life to literally hundreds of thousands of people. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address the Gramm/Kyl amendment to H.R. 8, the estate tax repeal bill. I want to first say that I am philosophically opposed to the estate tax, and have long expressed my belief that it is an unfair tax that we should ultimately do away with. In addition to threatening owners of small businesses and family farms, the estate tax acts to stifle investment in businesses, and is a disincentive for those who want to save so that they can pass assets on to their children and grandchildren. However, to vote in favor of repeal today, under our current circumstances, runs counter to another of my deep philosophical beliefs: fiscal responsibility. Last year I voted to support the President's tax cut package, which provides $1.3 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade. My support for that bill was partially determined by the estate tax relief provisions included within it. When I voted in favor of that bill, we were projected to benefit from some $5.6 trillion in budget surpluses over the coming decade, enabling us to provide significant relief to American taxpayers while also protecting the Social Security trust fund and programs in health, education, and numerous other areas. Needless to say, that outlook has changed dramatically in the past twelve months. The economic slowdown, combined with major new expenses associated with providing for homeland security and fighting the war on terror, have put a major strain on the federal budget, requiring Congress to exercise a degree of fiscal responsibility not seen during the late 1990's. Despite the threat of a budget deficit of over $125 billion this year, and projected deficits stretching through the end of the decade, House Republicans have made clear their intent to push through a permanent extension of all of the tax cuts included in the President's bill last year. The first of those extensions, and the one that we are considering today, is a permanent repeal of the estate tax. Yet there could not be a worse time to consider full repeal of the estate tax than right now. The latest estimates project full repeal of the estate tax will cost the federal government over $740 billion between 2011 and 2020. Although it is my hope that we will be able to permanently extend the repeal at an appropriate time before it is set to expire in 2010, we are in no position today to do that and cope with major outlays for defense and homeland security, as well as threats to funding for Social Security and Medicare. Earlier today, I voted in support of Senator Dorgan's amendment as a good compromise on this issue, and because it goes a long way toward addressing one of my major concern with estate tax: that it puts family-owned businesses and farms at risk of sale or closure simply because heirs are forced to sell in order to pay the estate tax bill. In addition to permanently extending an increased unified credit of $4 million per individual and $8 million per couple, Senator Dorgan's amendment provides relief to small business and family farm owners who suffer the most under current law by providing an unlimited exemption from the federal estate tax to small business owners and farmers. This would ensure that this tax no longer threatens anyone wishing to pass on a family-owned business to his or her heirs. Under current law, the unified credit is set to increase to $3.5 million by 2009, but the Qualified Family Owned Business Interest exemption will expire in 2004, removing what few safeguards are in place to protect those whose assets are tied up in family-owned farms or businesses. I am particularly concerned about protecting these businesses because of the relatively high value of California farm land. The value of an orange grove in Ventura, CA may be as high as $15,000 per acre due to local development pressures, compared with a price of $1,500-2,000 per acre for corn-growing land in a mid-western state. As a result, even a medium-sized California farm of 400 to 500 acres may be liable for a hefty estate tax bill, especially when the value of farm buildings and other capital investments are factored in. The estate tax may make it impossible for a family farm to be passed down from generation to generation. No one should be forced to sell the family farm just to pay the estate tax. Small business owners are equally at risk, and those who own and operate capital-intensive businesses must bear an exceptional burden. While the issue of small business liability under the estate tax has often been represented as affecting a tiny minority of Americans, in fact there may be many small business owners who sell or transfer their businesses in expectation of their heirs having to pay the tax. Additionally, the sale of family-owned businesses, particularly to larger conglomerates, threatens the jobs of thousands of Americans who are employed by those businesses. Even those businesses that can cover their tax liability may have to take on a large debt burden that threatens their competitiveness and delays efforts to expand or grow the business. The Dorgan amendment would have resolved this problem by uncapping the Qualified Family Owned Business Interest exemption entirely, but it also would have raised the individual exemption to $4 million in 2010. By providing this much-needed relief, the amendment would have limited estate tax liability to a tiny fraction of wealthy Americans who have large holdings of marketable assets. Regrettably, the Dorgan amendment did not pass, and we are faced with an unfortunate choice between full repeal and the limited relief passed as a part of the President tax package last year. I very much look forward to a time when the Senate can vote for full repeal of the estate tax with a clear conscience, knowing that a vote to repeal the estate tax is not a vote against fiscal responsibility. To vote for full repeal today would be to turn a blind eye to such responsibility, and to move forward guided only by the kind of irrational optimism that was so readily propounded only a year or two ago.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in expressing my strong support for The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001, legislation of which I am an original cosponsor. Popularly known as The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, this legislation would: expand current federal protections against hate crimes based on race, religion, and national origin; amend the criminal code to cover hate crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability; authorize grants for State and local programs designed to combat and prevent hate crimes; and enable the federal government to assist State and local law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. While past efforts to enact this legislation have received strong bipartisan support, we have not been able to get it to the President's desk for his consideration. We must now work to ensure that this legislation is not simply supported, but actually passed and signed into law by the President. In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11th, we saw a terrible rise in hate crimes in the United States. California was not immune to the violence. In San Gabriel, CA, Adel Karas, an Egyptian-American grocer, was shot to death while he worked in his store. It is believed that he was a victim of an attack motivated by the September 11 attacks, not a robbery, because all the cash was left in his register. In Palmdale, CA, a public high school found a notice threatening a ``massacre'' to avenge the terrorist attacks, complete with the names of five Muslim students who would be targeted. In Lancaster, CA, Gerald Pimentel, a Hispanic man, was attacked after he was mistaken for being Iranian. Two men bumped his car three times while he was driving. His car was then blocked, and the men began yelling and running toward him. They chased him through his yard and into his home. When he tried to defend his family, they beat him. ``They'd been calling him an Iranian,'' Gerald's daughter later said. ``I couldn't understand why. You know, my dad is not Iranian. They just kept hitting and hitting my dad,'' she said. The FBI has investigated over 300 incidents since September 11 in which individuals perceived to be Muslim or of Middle Eastern decent have been attacked or threatened because of their religion or national origin. President Bush moved swiftly to protect Muslims and Arab-Americans from hate crimes and sent out a message that this nation will not tolerate such attacks against any Americans. The President implored, ``In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect . . . Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind . . . '' Attorney General John Ashcroft reiterated the President's message by warning that, ``We must not descend to the level of those who perpetrated [September 11th] violence by targeting individuals based on race, religion or national origin.'' Now, it is the Senate's turn to speak out. We can, and must, do more to prevent these types of hateful threats and acts of violence, and passing The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would do just that. I have seen, first-hand, the devastating impact hate crimes have on victims, their families and their communities. A hate crime divides neighborhoods and breeds a sense of mistrust and fear within a community. I am an original cosponsor of The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act because it is aimed at protecting citizens from crimes based on their real or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. The current hate crimes law simply does not go far enough. It covers only crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin, and it only covers instances in which the victim was targeted because he or she was engaged in a federally-protected activity, such as voting, attending a public school, or if the crime occurred on federal property. The limitations of current Federal law prevent it from reaching many hate crimes where individuals are killed or injured by just walking down the street or, in the case of Clint Risetter, where he was sleeping in his own home. On February 24, 2002, Clint Risetter awoke in his Santa Barbara apartment engulfed in flames and then tried to escape as he was burning. When firefighters arrived, they found him dead on his patio. Two days later, Martin Hartmann walked into the Santa Barbara Police Department and admitted to entering Clint's apartment, pouring gasoline on him as he slept, and then setting him on fire. Hartmann had known Clint for several months but had learned just recently that Clint was gay. He told police about his hatred toward gays and how he `` . . . decided to put [Clint] out of his misery,'' because he was gay. He believed that he was doing the right thing and that Clint deserved to die. Clint's murder is being prosecuted as a hate crime because it took place in California which has its own hate crimes law that includes sexual orientation. However, had it taken place in one of the 27 states that do not have hate crimes laws that include sexual orientation, Clint's family might not receive the justice they are entitled to. Gay men and lesbians are the third-largest hate-crime victim group in the country, the second-largest in California. They were the targets of more than 16 percent, or almost 1,300, of all hate crimes in 2000. Yet, current Federal hate crimes law does not include crimes against individuals because of their real or perceived sexual orientation. Current law does not extend basic civil rights protections to every American, only to a few and under certain circumstances. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would expand current Federal protections against hate crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin, and amend the criminal code to cover hate crimes based on gender, disability, and sexual orientation. Extending the law would not provide special rights, it would ensure equal protection. In the past, we have made some progress in the sentencing and prosecution of hate crimes, but more needs to be done. I am proud to have sponsored The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act which was signed into law in 1994, and has just recently been invoked for the first time. In 1996, Julianne Marie Williams and Laura Winans were discovered dead in Virginia's Shenandoah National Park, bound and gagged with their throats slit. In April of this year, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act would be invoked in the murder indictment against the perpetrator of this horrific crime, Darrell Rice, ``to ensure justice for victims of hate crimes.'' Rice chose his victims based on their gender and sexual orientation. He even stated that he intentionally selected women to intimidate and assault ``because they are more vulnerable than men'' and that these two women ``deserved to die because they were lesbian whores.'' With this indictment, the Federal Government has recognized the horrendous nature of this hate crime and that it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, prosecutors were only able to use The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act because the two women were killed in a national park. If these murders had occurred in almost any other place in America, The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act could not have been invoked and, again, justice might not have been ensured for the victims and their families. Enacting The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would ensure that all hate crimes can be investigated and prosecuted no matter what the victims are doing when they are targeted and no matter where the crime is perpetrated. It would also significantly increase the ability of State and Federal law enforcement agencies to work together to solve and prevent hate crime. Until we enact this legislation, many hate crime victims and their families may not receive the justice they deserve. Those who are opposed to this legislation would say that we should leave it up to the states to legislate, enforce and prosecute hate crimes laws. To those, I would refer you to a May 3rd, 2002, New York Times editorial which put it best. It read: Congress has long recognized that the Federal Government should play a role in pursuing certain crimes, like bank robbery, kidnapping and racketeering, where the national interest is great and where federal law enforcement is in a good position to offer help to local police and prosecutors. Crimes in which individuals are singled out because of their race, religion or membership in other protected groups strike directly at this nation's commitment to equality, and are worthy of this sort of special federal involvement. Other opponents of this legislation often argue that any crime of violence is a hate crime and that the motives behind and harms caused by a hate crime are not relevant or distinguishable from other crimes. I disagree. The crimes perpetrated against Gerald Pimentel, Julianne Williams and Laura Winans, and Clint Risetter were carried out with a different intent and motive than other violent crimes. Unfortunately, they are characteristic of many hate crimes in America; where an attacker repeatedly beats, stabs or severely burns his victim as if he is removing whatever it is he hates out of the person. And the attacker feels justified in doing so, as if he is doing a great service to humanity by killing the person. Congress should expand the ability of the Federal Government to investigate these heinous crimes, and it should expand the ability to prosecute anyone who would target victims because of hate. Final passage of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is long overdue. It is necessary for the safety and well being of millions of Americans. No American should be afraid to go to work or school because of his or her religion or national origin. No American should be afraid to go hiking for fear of a gender- motivated attack. And certainly, no American should be afraid to sleep in their own home because of his or her sexual orientation. We have had strong bipartisan support for this legislation in the past, and it continues to receive bipartisan support. It now has 50 cosponsors in the Senate and 206 cosponsors in the House. Today, I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture and vote in favor of this legislation. Let us now send a message to all Americans, that we will no longer turn a blind eye to hate crimes in this country.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of increasing funding for HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment programs in the developing world. The funding put forward in this amendment is essential to assisting resource poor countries in confronting the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The HIV virus has infected over 40 million people worldwide, with over 95 percent of those infected living outside of the United States. HIV/AIDS is now the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, an estimated 25.3 million people are living with HIV/AIDS and 2.3 million died of HIV last year alone. Unless we take a leading role in the international community in the fight against HIV/AIDS, it is possible that sub-Saharan Africa will be wiped-out, with profound political, economic, social, and security consequences for the United States. AIDS is a major problem not only in Africa, which has received so much attention in the press, but also in India, Southeast Asia, China, to name but a few countries impacted. The AIDS pandemic is devastating, and quite literally wiping out, many countries. According to some analysis, AIDS will reduce economic growth by up to 1 percent of GDP per year and consume more than 50 percent of health budgets in the hardest-hit countries. The world has not seen an epidemic of this severity since the bubonic plague, and it is going to take everyone in the global community, working together, to halt the spread of the HIV virus. There can be little doubt that HIV/AIDS is a health emergency of monumental proportions. I believe that the United States has a responsibility to assist resource poor countries in gaining the funding necessary to provide people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS with access to the services, such as drug therapy, necessary to save lives. It is clearly in the interest of the United States to prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS. This is not just a humanitarian issue, but also one of global security. In 2000, the National Intelligence Council reported that new and reemerging infectious diseases will pose a rising global health threat and will complicate U.S. and international security interests over the next 20 years. A CIA commissioned study by the State Failure Task Force found that a high infant death rate is one of the best indicators of impending instability and state collapse. The global HIV/AIDS crisis is certainly an emergency and worthy of funding as an emergency designation as part of the Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Supplemental. It is an emergency for the people of sub- Saharan Africa. It is an emergency for the people of West Africa. It is an emergency for the people of India. Let's invest more funding in these countries now before we have to add more countries to the growing list of countries experiencing an emergency due to the HIV/AIDS crisis.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the United States fights this war against terrorism--and puts in place the programs called for in this emergency supplemental for homeland defense and on-going military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere--we can't overlook the fact that global poverty is a contributing factor and a breeding ground for terrorism, and that if we are to be successful in this war the United States must significantly increase its foreign assistance spending commitments. Several of my colleagues and I had hoped to be able to do so on this emergency supplemental. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be possible. But we want to be clear that we remain committed to this goal, and intend to work through the normal appropriations process to see this happen. It is in our country's national interest to bring aid and functioning, free-market democratic institutions to countries and regions that might otherwise wallow in poverty, be preyed on by fanatics, or provide safe havens for terrorists. I see one of my colleagues in these efforts, Senator DeWine, and would ask him his thoughts on the importance of this issue in safeguarding U.S. national interests.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. United States foreign assistance spending today is just eight-tenths of 1 percent of the budget with less than six-tenths of 1 percent going to humanitarian assistance and economic development. And yet, 2.8 billion people on this planet live in abject poverty-- getting by on $2 a day or less. That's less than a cappuccino at Starbucks. Close to 1 billion people are undernourished; 1.2 billion lack access to even safe drinking water; and 2.5 million do not have access to adequate sanitation. In the wake of September 11, I introduced a resolution to triple our foreign aid budget over the next 5 years, a resolution which was passed by the Senate just this week. So I was pleased when president Bush committed to increasing the United States foreign aid by an additional $10 billion over 4 years, beginning in 2004. The President is to be commended for this initiative. But although this additional funding represents a significant increase in foreign aid it is still well short of historic levels, and well short of the level I believe is needed to engage and win the war against terrorism. In 1946, the United States devoted 3 percent of its Federal budget to foreign assistance--a high water mark which was reached again under the Kennedy administration. But since then, spending has gone downhill. According to a Congressional Budget Office report entitled ``The Role of Foreign Aid in Development,'' United States spending on foreign assistance has fluctuated from year-to-year but has been on a downward path since the 1960's. A tripling of our foreign aid budget--a level that I consider to be appropriate and which the Senate is now on record as supporting-- would simply bring it back in line with historic levels. If the United States is to be successful in the war on terrorism--if we are to be successful in helping to spread democracy and free-markets around the globe--we must be willing to step up and bear the burden of leadership. Even looking beyond the humanitarian rationale--which I believe is sufficient reason alone for action--the United States will never be secure in a world in which: Sub-Saharan Africa is ravaged by the AIDS pandemic; more than half the people of the world go to bed hungry every night; civil wars are a constant; and where failed or failing states, unable to meet the needs of their peoples, and allow terrorists and terrorism to thrive. Reducing poverty, promoting equitable economic growth, and developing democratic institutions advances United States national security interests. The failure to address these issues through a significant increase in foreign assistance spending, and the resulting risk of social, economic, and political instability and violence, places United States national security interests and the welfare and safety of United States citizens at risk. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the days and years ahead to address this important issue, and to assure that U.S. foreign assistance spending levels are appropriate to the challenges that our nation faces and our leadership position in the international community.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend and a true Hollywood legend: Lew Wasserman, a man who stood as a giant among giants. On Monday, June 3rd, Lew passed away at his home from complications of a stroke. My heart goes out to his wife Edie, daughter Lynne Kay Wasserman, his grandson Casey and granddaughter Carol Leif, and to members of his extended family. Lew was a great pioneer in the entertainment industry. He began his career in show business while in high school, working as an usher at the Palace Theater in Cleveland. Together Lew and Dr. Jules Stein built the world's largest talent agency representing such legends as Bette Davis, James Stewart, Alfred Hitchcock, Tommy Dorsey, Kay Kyser, and Errol Flynn to name a few. He also built a conglomerate of motion picture and television companies that produced the memorable hit movies ``American Graffiti'', ``ET--the Extra Terrestrial'' and ``Schindler's List.'' Without question Lew Wasserman was one of the most powerful and influential people in the entertainment industry, and his presence and leadership will be truly missed. I am certain that his memory and good works will live on and continue to touch and improve the lives of people everywhere. To list Lew's accomplishments does not come near to his contributions to our great nation. Although Lew was unable to afford college, he was inspired to donate millions of dollars for undergraduate scholarships at UCLA. Indeed, few people have been as big-hearted and giving as Lew and his wife Edie. Together they have given millions of dollars to a myriad of philanthropic causes including the Motion Picture & Television Hospital in Woodland Hills. Lew was instrumental in building the Dorothy Chandler Music Center in Los Angeles and served as a trustee of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the California Institute of Technology. I know that the Wasserman family will continue the legacy of philanthropic giving. Lew also was very active in the foundation, Research to Prevent Blindness for which he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country's highest civilian honor, by former President Clinton. Throughout his distinguished career, Lew was often called upon by important leaders in our country including former Presidents Clinton, Reagan, Carter and Lyndon B. Johnson, who wanted him as his Secretary of Commerce. Despite his retirement, Lew was a man of tireless energy. He was an avid and effective mediator during the labor tensions last year, when major studios were negotiating with writers and actors, Lew privately advised both sides to compromise, avoiding a strike that could have potentially paralyzed the economy of California. Simply put Lew Wasserman was a great American. His legacy is one of inspiring leadership and extraordinary accomplishment. I am proud to say Lew was a loyal and good friend. Lew set a high standard and his passing has left an enormous void to fill. I know the next few weeks and months will be difficult for Edie and the rest of the Wasserman family. But as they grieve, I hope they find comfort in knowing what a wonderful contribution Lew made to the world around him.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect those living along the California-Mexican border from harmful power plant emissions. This bill, which Congressman Duncan Hunter is also introducing today in the House of Representatives, will prevent power plants built in Mexico from using natural gas from the United States, unless firms operating these plants agree to comply with California's air pollution standards. Currently there are two new power plants planned for Mexicali, Mexico, a city right across the border from Imperial County, California. Imperial County is the region in Southern California impacted most by pollution in Mexico. And since the county has some of the worst air quality in the United States and one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the State, I believe these new plants must meet California emission standards. One of the Mexicali plants, which is being built by Sempra Energy, will have pollution mitigation technology to minimize the impact of air pollution on the residents of the Imperial Valley. However, the other plant, to be built by InterGen, will not. I am introducing this legislation today to make sure any plant that comes online along the California-Mexican border meets the same air quality standards as plants in California. The residents of Imperial County and the entire Southern California region deserve nothing less. I have heard from many constituents in Southern California concerned about the InterGen plant and local officials in Imperial County are adamantly opposed to the InterGen plant because the company has refused to install pollution control devices on all four operating units. This legislation will ensure energy plants along the border employ the best technology available to control pollution and protect the public health for residents of Southern California and other border regions in a similar situation. The bill will prohibit energy companies from exporting natural gas from the United States for use in Mexico unless the natural gas fired generators south of the border meet the air standards prevalent in the United States. This will effectively cut power plants off from their natural gas supply if they do not meet higher emissions standards. This legislation will not constrain power plants that were put online prior to January 1, 2002. It will apply to plants built after the new year and projects that come online in the future. This bill will only apply to power plants within 50 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. And the legislation will only apply to power plants that generate more than 50 megawatts of power. We do not want to block any moves to replace dirty diesel back-up generators with cleaner natural-gas fired small power sources. The bill calls for collaboration between the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to determine if a power plant is in compliance with relevant emission standards. I support the development of new energy projects for California because I believe we need to bring more power online. However, I do not believe the fact that we need more power in California should allow companies to take advantage of this need and use it as an excuse to devote less attention to clean air and public health. It is not unreasonable to ensure that companies making money in the California energy market meet strict environmental standards. This legislation is meant to strike a balance between promoting new sources of energy south of the border and protecting the environment throughout the border region. It is not a final resolution of these cross-border issues, but I believe it is a good first step.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect those living along the California-Mexican border from harmful power plant emissions. This bill, which Congressman Duncan Hunter is also introducing today in the House of Representatives, will prevent power plants built in Mexico from using natural gas from the United States, unless firms operating these plants agree to comply with California's air pollution standards. Currently there are two new power plants planned for Mexicali, Mexico, a city right across the border from Imperial County, California. Imperial County is the region in Southern California impacted most by pollution in Mexico. And since the county has some of the worst air quality in the United States and one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the State, I believe these new plants must meet California emission standards. One of the Mexicali plants, which is being built by Sempra Energy, will have pollution mitigation technology to minimize the impact of air pollution on the residents of the Imperial Valley. However, the other plant, to be built by InterGen, will not. I am introducing this legislation today to make sure any plant that comes online along the California-Mexican border meets the same air quality standards as plants in California. The residents of Imperial County and the entire Southern California region deserve nothing less. I have heard from many constituents in Southern California concerned about the InterGen plant and local officials in Imperial County are adamantly opposed to the InterGen plant because the company has refused to install pollution control devices on all four operating units. This legislation will ensure energy plants along the border employ the best technology available to control pollution and protect the public health for residents of Southern California and other border regions in a similar situation. The bill will prohibit energy companies from exporting natural gas from the United States for use in Mexico unless the natural gas fired generators south of the border meet the air standards prevalent in the United States. This will effectively cut power plants off from their natural gas supply if they do not meet higher emissions standards. This legislation will not constrain power plants that were put online prior to January 1, 2002. It will apply to plants built after the new year and projects that come online in the future. This bill will only apply to power plants within 50 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. And the legislation will only apply to power plants that generate more than 50 megawatts of power. We do not want to block any moves to replace dirty diesel back-up generators with cleaner natural-gas fired small power sources. The bill calls for collaboration between the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to determine if a power plant is in compliance with relevant emission standards. I support the development of new energy projects for California because I believe we need to bring more power online. However, I do not believe the fact that we need more power in California should allow companies to take advantage of this need and use it as an excuse to devote less attention to clean air and public health. It is not unreasonable to ensure that companies making money in the California energy market meet strict environmental standards. This legislation is meant to strike a balance between promoting new sources of energy south of the border and protecting the environment throughout the border region. It is not a final resolution of these cross-border issues, but I believe it is a good first step.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise in strong support of passage of the conference report for H.R. 3448, the Public Health and Bioterrorism Response Act. This legislation will make our Nation better prepared for bioterrorist threats and other public health emergencies. That is why I am pleased that this bill includes funding to bolster the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, including enough smallpox vaccine to protect every American. We must ensure that there are sufficient vaccines, drugs, and medical supplies available to protect Americans against any potential biological attack. I believe this bill moves us one step closer to protecting every American from this threat. It is also crucial that we assist our States and local hospitals and health departments in beefing up their systems, including training personnel and first-responders on how to respond to a bioterrorism attacks. This legislation includes $1.6 billion for fiscal year 2003 to address these needs. I am particularly pleased that the conference report includes a provision which I sponsored along with Senator Judd Gregg, R-NH, establishing strict new controls for laboratories that handle anthrax, smallpox, and more than 30 other deadly pathogens. These provisions are the product of extensive negotiations with a number of other Senators including, Senator Frist, Kennedy, Harkin, and Durbin, as well as House Conferees, and the administration. The threat of biological attacks became front page news last fall, when deadly anthrax attacks killed five people, infected 23 people, 11 with inhalation anthrax and 12 with cutaneous anthrax, and shut down a Senate office building for 3 months. The FBI has poured extraordinary resources into apprehending the perpetrator. Over the past 5 months, FBI agents have interviewed more than 5,000 people and offered a $2.5 million reward. Unfortunately, it has been unable to locate a single witness, fingerprint or a match to the handwriting found on the envelopes. We still do not know when or if the perpetrator will be found. It became clear during the investigation of the anthrax attacks that the regulations governing these dangerous substances were too lax. Our government did not keep track of who possesses these materials. No special registration was required to possess these agents. Nor were background checks conducted on the laboratory personnel who handled or had access to these agents. Under these security conditions, a rogue employee or outside terrorist group could easily gain access to some of the most dangerous pathogens on Earth. To close these loopholes, I introduced the Deadly Biological Agent Control Act last fall with Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, and a similar provision was approved as part of the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. I am pleased that key portions of this legislation were included in the final comprehensive bioterrorism package. The conference report has the following key provisions: All labs that possess these dangerous agents would have to get registered with the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Agriculture, for animal pathogens. The registration process would include rigorous background screening by the Department of Justice of any laboratory employees intending to handle the agents. Anyone who possesses these agents without obtaining a registration will be subject to 5 years in Federal prison. The legislation also creates, for the first time, a national database of dangerous pathogens, so that the characterization, location and use of these agents can be tracked. Tighter controls of these agents are critical because they can be converted into weapons of mass destruction. In addition, to make sure that this list of dangerous agents is kept up-to-date, it must be reviewed a minimum of every two years. We need these strong measures because in the wrong hands, these biological agents can be converted into weapons of mass destruction. According to the calculation of some experts, biological weapons are pound for pound potentially more lethal even than thermonuclear weapons. For example, the World Health Organization estimates that 50 kilograms of the virus that causes the plague, aerosolized over an urban city of 500,000, would incapacitate one fifth of the population and kill 55,000. A 1993 report by the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment estimated that between 130,000 and 3 million deaths could follow the aerosolized release of 100 kilograms of anthrax spores upwind of the Washington D.C. area, lethally matching or exceeding that of a hydrogen bomb. In sum, I believe it is critical that these laboratory security provisions were incorporated into this bioterrorism bill. Any comprehensive bioterrorism preparedness package would be incomplete without addressing laboratory security here in the United States. These controls are reasonable and necessary, given the extraordinary threat posed by biological and chemical weapons.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Gordon Smith, Durbin, Murray, Landrieu, and Corzine to submit a resolution voicing the Senate's commitment to improving the health of mothers and children around the world. This resolution illustrates that an increased commitment to improving the health of the world's mothers and children will have a long-term impact on the political, economic, and social stability of developing countries. The stability of our own nation depends significantly on the economic and political stability of developing nations. And their economic and political stability cannot be realized unless the health of their people is improved. The resolution we are introducing today calls for increased funding for basic child survival and maternal health programs of at least $500 million dollars. This figure is a small investment when the dividends could be political stability, international security, and a renewed hope for the future of mothers and children around the world. A few weeks ago, representatives from over 179 countries met at the United Nations Special Session on Children. During this meeting, they reviewed the progress made since the 1990 World Summit for Children and renewed their pledge to improve the lives of the world's children over the next decade. Overall, the funding for global health, which includes HIV/AIDS programs, has increased significantly. Child survival and maternal health programs was funded at $345 million in fiscal year 2001. Funding was cut by $26 million in fiscal year 2002. The Bush administration also acknowledges that investing in health care increases a country's ability to prosper. President Bush made a wise decision when he proposed increased funding for global HIV/AIDS programs at USAID for fiscal year 2003. However, his budget also recommends a $25 million decrease in support for maternal and child health programs. The funding situation is getting worse rather than better for child survival and maternal health programs. Difficult choices must be made, understandably, but funds should not be shifted from one essential health program to pay for another. Especially when funding for maternal and child health programs have been decreased in previous years. At this precarious time in our world, we cannot lose sight of the health of women, the primary caregivers who instill values and provide hope for their children; the future of every society. Women in developing countries put their lives at risk when they become pregnant, over 500,000 women die every year during pregnancy and childbirth. The health of a child and his or her mother are closely intertwined, and good maternal health is essential for the survival of both mother and child. In developing countries, a mother's death in childbirth due to malnutrition, or inadequate prenatal and delivery care, means almost certain death for her newly born child. We must also invest substantially more in programs that improve the health of young children. Every day around the world, over 30,000 children die preventable deaths from diseases such as pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria, measles, and malnutrition. Additionally, every year, nearly 11 million children die needlessly before their fifth birthday--almost all from diseases easily prevented or readily treated. Pennies worth of antibiotics, for example, could save three million children who will die this year of pneumonia. The true tragedy is that we know how to prevent these 11.5 million deaths that occur each year. Low-tech, low-cost interventions exist, and with additional resources to fund these interventions, could save lives. Children must be nourished so that they can thrive and disparities between developed and developing countries can be reduced. As studies continue to show that high maternal and child mortality are directly correlated with social and political instability, we must take action to ensure the growth and development of the countries who need it most and their people who are dying needlessly. The World Health Organization has reported that $27 billion will be needed in 2007 to provide necessary health interventions to those living in low-income countries. I believe we must do all we can to provide funds to improve the health of the world's mothers and children. The resolution being introduced proposes an increase in funding by at least $500 million for child survival and maternal health programs. We need to renew our commitment to mothers and children all over the world. The programs supported by USAID have and will make a difference in the lives of mothers and children in the developing world. I strongly believe that an increase in funding is necessary and will have a positive long-term impact on the political, economic, and social stability of those countries. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor. This bill was introduced in the House by Congressman Adam Schiff last year. The Rim of the Valley Corridor, as designated by California law, encircles the San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta, Simi, Santa Clarita, Conejo Valleys, consisting of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills and adjacent connector area to the Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests. With the population growth forecast for the next several decades, the need for parks to balance out the expected population growth has become critical in California. Federal, State, and local authorities have worked together successfully to create the highly successful Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, the world's largest urban park, hemmed in on all sides by development. Park and recreational lands provide people with a vital refuge from urban life while preserving valuable habitat and wildlife. This bill enjoys strong support from local and state officials and I believe it will have strong bipartisan support as well. After the study called for in this bill is completed, the Secretary of Interior and Congress will be in a key position to determine whether the Rim of the Valley warrants national park status. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor. This bill was introduced in the House by Congressman Adam Schiff last year. The Rim of the Valley Corridor, as designated by California law, encircles the San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta, Simi, Santa Clarita, Conejo Valleys, consisting of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills and adjacent connector area to the Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests. With the population growth forecast for the next several decades, the need for parks to balance out the expected population growth has become critical in California. Federal, State, and local authorities have worked together successfully to create the highly successful Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, the world's largest urban park, hemmed in on all sides by development. Park and recreational lands provide people with a vital refuge from urban life while preserving valuable habitat and wildlife. This bill enjoys strong support from local and state officials and I believe it will have strong bipartisan support as well. After the study called for in this bill is completed, the Secretary of Interior and Congress will be in a key position to determine whether the Rim of the Valley warrants national park status. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senate for passing H.R. 4592, which designates the chapel located in the national cemetery in Los Angeles, CA the Bob Hope Veterans Chapel. Beginning in May, 1941, when he performed his radio show for airmen at March Field, CA, and continuing through his Christmas show in Saudi Arabia in 1990 during Operation Desert Storm, Leslie Townes (Bob) Hope has taken to the roads to entertain U.S. troops, no matter where they were located. Whether the country was at war or peace, Mr. Hope spent nearly 60 years committed to boosting the morale of U.S. armed forces through goodwill tours, United Services Organization shows, and his world-famous Christmas specials. Through laughter, Mr. Hope helped an estimated 10 million GIs forget, for a brief period, their distance from home. In October, 1997, Mr. Hope was made an Honorary Veteran through Congressional action--the first individual so honored in the history of the United States. Mr. Hope and his wife, Dolores, have been married for 68 years, and have four children, as well as four grandchildren. This legislation would further honor Mr. Hope's selfless devotion to America's protectors on this, his 99th birthday, by naming after him the chapel in the national cemetery near his home--a lasting tribute to his lifetime of service.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for trade promotion authority. My decision to support this bill has not been an easy one. I respect the opinions of my colleagues who do not support trade promotion authority and I share many of their concerns. However, two issues have changed my thinking on this matter: the necessity of trade promotion authority to conclude multilateral trade deals and the substantive worker protection provisions contained in the bill. Therefore, I believe we must grant the President the trade promotion authority to reclaim U.S. leadership in the global trade arena and provide him the support he needs to conclude multilateral trade agreements that will benefit California and the United States as a whole. And, as this bill does, we must do so in a way that provides protection and support for workers who may be displaced from their jobs due to increased globalization. I have long supported free trade. Like many of my colleagues, I believe that expanding free trade and the exchange of goods, ideas, and services across the global marketplace is vital to the success of American industries, the creation of new jobs, and the economic well- being of all Americans. My home State of California, which ranks among the top economies in the world and leads the country in exports, has greatly benefitted from past free trade agreements and stands to gain even more from future negotiations. Now, I understand that many of my colleagues will point out that this administration and its predecessor have concluded and signed trade agreements since fast-track expired in 1994. No doubt this is true and no doubt it will continue to be true. Yet those agreements have been bilateral trade agreements. Many bilateral agreements have been signed without fast track authority. One recent and noteworthy example is the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. I voted for that agreement and I believe it is important tool to advance the cause of peace and stability in the Middle East. But while the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement is politically vital, economically it is rather small bilateral trade between the two countries is approximately $600 million. Multilateral negotiations, on the other hand, such as those aimed at establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas or the Doha round of global trade talks, involve far more countries, far more negotiators, and far more billions of dollars worth of trade. As former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Richard Fisher told me, our trade negotiators need fast track to tackle the difficult, complex, and diverse issues that inevitably arise in multilateral talks and get our partners to put the best deal on the table. Without it, we simpliy can't close out these deals. If our partners know that they will have to negotiate with Congress after negotiating with the administration, the most sensitive issues, and the keys to unlocking new and expanding markets, will be taken off the agenda. Imagine if you were a party to a multilateral trade negotiation and you knew that a final agreement would be open to amendment by the U.S. Congress. You would never agree to put your best offer on the table and you would never agree to sign any agreement if you thought that the deal you negotiated--one that would provide multiple benefits to both sides--would be change. So, fast track becomes an imperative, if multilateral agreements are to be negotiated successfully. But we must also remember that some workers and some firms do suffer as a result of increased trade and we have an obligation not to leave them behind as global trade moves forward. So protection for workers is important and vital to any trade promotion authority bill. Consequently, I support the robust and expanded trade adjustment assistance package that will assist those workers in their time of need and help them find new jobs. Since 1962, trade adjustment assistance has been a bridge between the global economy and the local economy. Let their be no doubt that this bill is a step forward for American workers. It provides assistance, training, and support for workers as they move into a new career. Specifically, the bill expands eligibility for benefits to secondary workers such as suppliers and downstream producers who lose their jobs or may lose their jobs due to a loss of business with a firm whose workers are TAA certified; extends income support from 52 to 78 weeks; provides a 70 percent advanceable, refundable tax credit to help TAA workers make COBRA payments; increases assistance for job relocation and job searches; increases the training budget to $300 million; establishes a wage insurance program to provide support to older workers who lose their job due to trade and are forced to take a lesser paying job; establishes trade adjustment assistance programs for farmers, fisherman, and communities affected by trade, and finally; establishes a training program through the Small Business Administration for TAA-certified workers on how to start their own business. Finally, let me turn now to my role as a Senator from the State of California. California is like no other State. It is the fifth largest economic engine in the world with a $1.33 trillion economy. From high tech to agriculture, California is a leader in the U.S. and the global market, and it has greatly benefitted from free trade initiatives. In 2001, 14.6 percent of U.S. exports came from California, totaling $106.8 billion, tops in the Nation. Exports support more than one million jobs for Californians. Yet if California is to maintain its status as a global economic leader, our businesses and working people must have access to new and expanding markets around the world. Trade promotion authority, as I have indicated, is an important tool in that effort. Global trade is with us. We simply can not ignore that fact. Turning inward, building barriers, and shutting out the outside world is not realistic. We must deal with globalization and we must deal with it in a way that enhances the ability of American exports to reach new and expanding markets, while at the same time promoting respect for labor rights and the environment and ensuring that no worker is left behind. Trade promotion authority is the best vehicle for Congress and the administration, working as partners, to build an effective trade agenda that advances U.S. interests at home and abroad.