Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to put some documents in the Record that just came over from the House.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of Senator Schumer, which is to remove the so-called renewable fuels part of the energy bill. I am a member of the Energy Committee. You can imagine my consternation when I find a bill that is put together in the dark of night with this renewable fuels requirement that has had no hearing, no comment, no opportunity for the Energy Committee to take a good look at it. This is a bill that adds to a subsidy of 53 cents a gallon on ethanol under existing law, it mandates a tripling of the ethanol use in the next 10 years throughout the Nation, this is in addition to protective tariffs of 54 cents a gallon in existing law, so no nation that might be able to produce it more cheaply has no chance of exporting it economically into the United States. It is protect, protect, protect. It has been said that this is a massive transfer of wealth out of some States into other States. I deeply believe all of that is true. Only 1.77 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in 2001. The Senate bill requires 5 billion gallons by 2012. Alone, California, the largest State in the Union, is forced to use 2.68 billion gallons of ethanol it does not need. It doesn't need this ethanol to clean the air because California has reformulated fuel and can meet the clean air standards at all times except for winter months in the southern California-Los Angeles market. Then it uses ethanol. This chart very clearly indicates the situation. I have shown this before. Here, the blue is what my State would use of ethanol to meet clean air standards. This is what this mandate requires that the State either use or pay for. That is not good public policy. It is not good public policy because the State doesn't need it. Additionally, the California Energy Commission has said this action will create a 5-percent to 10-percent shortfall in California's gasoline--a 5-percent to 10-percent shortfall. Our refiners are at 98 percent of capacity, so how do we refine enough gasoline to meet the need? We do not. This means a gas tax. It is estimated by some that it could even lead to gas prices of $4 per gallon. Senator Schumer has said it is 10 cents a gallon additional for California, New York and other States. If you put two tankfuls in your car a week, figure out what that costs in terms of an additional tax that every motorist will be paying. Since 98 percent of the ethanol production is based in the Midwest, States outside the Corn Belt have severe infrastructure and ethanol supply problems. This is the reason we do: You cannot put ethanol in a pipeline. You have to barge it, truck it, or rail it in. We will have to rail in 2.68 billion gallons of ethanol that California does not need. The infrastructure is not presently there for it. We have talked about the high market concentration, the fact that one company controls 41 percent of the ethanol production and that eight companies together control 71 percent. Some articles have been written said this is what creates a massive transfer of wealth: 70 percent of the dividends in this package go to the ethanol producers; only 30 percent go to the actual corn farmers. Ethanol also has a mixed environmental impact. Let me tell you why. Ethanol helps retard carbon monoxide, but ethanol also produces more nitrogen oxide emissions. So the NOX, which produces smog pollution, is actually greater as a product of ethanol. In a State like California that has been very concerned about pollution, this is only going to do one thing: it is going to increase smog in the State of California. Additionally, ethanol enables the separation of the components of gasoline; therefore, benzene, for example, which is in gasoline and which is carcinogenic, can separate from gasoline. So if there is a leak, then benzene is one of the additives that leaks. All of the reports say it enables gasoline leaks to travel farther and faster, once it is released. Important in all of this to those of us who care about transit and highway funding is something that is really interesting. We presently put into the Highway Trust Fund about 18 cents a gallon. Since ethanol is only taxed at 13 cents a gallon the Highway Trust Fund will lose at least $7 billion. So this lessens the highway trust fund for everybody who looks to that fund for dollars for buses, for dollars for highways, for dollars for transportation systems. There will be at least $7 billion less according to CRS. Let me read what the boilermakers say about that. The International Union of Boilermakers have written: Simply put, for each $1 billion the Trust Fund loses, America loses almost 42,000 jobs. . . . And that is a resource we cannot renew. It is our understanding that by mandating the use of ethanol, this legislation is encouraging the market penetration of ethanol, undermining America's infrastructure and America's environment. The bottom line in this letter is that this ethanol mandate is a dangerous approach and is going to result in dramatic job loss. Also, ethanol is not necessarily a renewable fuel, despite what everyone says. There are a number of scientific reports that have found it takes more energy to make ethanol than it saves. It actually takes 70 percent more energy to produce ethanol than it saves. So the bottom line is that this is a bad deal. This deal is even made worse by the fact that despite these environmental considerations, nobody will be able to sue. There is a safe harbor provision, so no one can sue if the environment is damaged or the public health is damaged. Here we have a bill that on top of the ethanol subsidies, it cuts the highway trust fund, it mandates an increase in the gas tax, and it benefits mainly producers in the Midwest. It is, in my view, a bad addition to this energy bill. Frankly, I think it is so bad that I am very pleased to support Senator Schumer's amendment which would remove this renewable fuels requirement from the bill, permit an oxygenate waiver but remove the ethanol from the bill. I don't quite know how we defeat this. I wish to read from a Wall Street Journal editorial that ran last week: If consumers think the federal gas tax is ugly, this new ethanol tax will give them shudders. Moving ethanol to places outside the Midwest involves big shipping fees, or building new capacity. Refiners also face costs in adding ethanol to their products. According to independent consultant Hart Downstream Energy Services, the mandate would cost consumers an extra annual $8.4 billion at the pump the first 5 years. New York and California would see gas prices rise by 7 cents to 10 cents a gallon. . . . And that doesn't take into account inevitable price spikes. There simply isn't enough corn in all of Iowa to meet new ethanol demands. Last year the ethanol industry produced only 1.7 billion gallons. The Daschle mandate would require it to increase production by more than 35 percent in a mere 3 years. That is a tall order for any industry, much less one that relies on Mother Nature. Some estimates are that a shortage could double gas prices. Why are we doing this? Why does this bill have to be so greedy? Why does it need to triple ethanol use? Nobody really knows what it does to the environment. Why triple it? How is a good energy bill going to be viewed, if it triples something about which there is great uncertainty and many States don't need to use it? The west coast and the east coast don't have the infrastructure to absorb it, let alone a $7 billion cut in the highway trust fund. Cut the highway trust fund and Californians are forced to pay higher gas taxes, and have less money to build the roads, highways, and transportation systems they need, let alone cut 300,000 jobs nationwide. I will admit that the ethanol lobby is a tough lobby. About a year ago, I was trying to negotiate in my office. I invited most of the California refiners, oil companies, the corn growers, and the renewable fuels associations. I thought we had worked out something. Then, the renewable fuels people backed off the table. Now they come back greedy. What they have done--and let us call a spade a spade--is essentially quieted the refineries by promising them in this bill protection against liability, so that nobody can sue an oil company if the ethanol causes gasoline to separate, as it does, and benzene leaks, and people are adversely impacted. They cannot sue. The gasoline companies-- because they told me this--wanted this protection against liability. If they had the protection against liability, they would reluctantly go along with this package. That is not good energy policy. How is it good energy policy to triple something that has mixed environmental impact, at best? How is it good energy policy to increase gas prices? How is it good energy policy to take $7 billion out of the highway trust fund, cost 300,000 jobs, and cut funding to the transportation system, the highways, and the roads that this country needs? How is that good energy policy? To mandate a tripling of the fuel, then saying they are credits, but if you do not use them, you pay for them. This is on top of fundamentally protecting the Midwest corn industry by putting a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on any imported ethanol to keep it out of the country because it might cost the motorists less, how is that good energy policy? Somebody come and tell me. California would top the list in the amount of transit dollars lost because of the ethanol mandate. Maybe nobody cares about California, but Senator Boxer and I do. I would like to reference an article that mentions the big losers. California is a big loser. It loses $905 million from the highway trust fund over 9 years. Texas is a big loser. It loses $750 million from the highway trust fund. New York is a big loser. It loses $493 million that could be used for subways, for buses, and for transit systems. Pennsylvania is a big loser. It loses $446 million. Florida is a big loser. It loses $436 million from the highway trust fund. Illinois: $337 million from the highway trust fund. Ohio: $336 million from the highway trust fund. Georgia: $333 million from the highway trust fund. Michigan: $312 million from the Highway Trust Fund. And New Jersey, the last State that is a big loser, loses $262 million from the highway trust fund.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. But then do you pay for it if you do not use it under the credit trading provision?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So you pay the amount?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from New York. How is this a good provision for the energy bill? How does it even justify the rest of the energy bill? I don't think it does. How can you cost States this enormous amount? How can you force a tripling of ethanol when you don't know all of the environmental effects? How can you force it when you know the effect is increasing NOx which increases smog? How is that good legislation? It may well be that some ethanol is good. The problem is tripling it. It is forcing ethanol where it isn't needed. It is forcing ethanol with a potential deterrent to health, to the environment, and to the highway trust fund. I have a dramatic difference of opinion with respect to this bill. I believe that any shortfall in supply, because of manipulation, which we know is possible because just a small number of producers control the market--this is Enron redux; therefore, they will have unusual market control over price--will be exacerbated because the State will be reliant on ethanol coming from another region. According to a recent report issued by the GAO, 98 percent of ethanol production is located just in the Midwest. I don't have a problem if the Midwest wants to use it; that is fine with me. The problem is as a matter of public policy pushing it here and pushing it there where States don't need it. As you can see, if you can't pipe it, you have to truck it or barge it or rail it. Where is the infrastructure? How do you get these billions of additional gallons required to California? What if some of the plants aren't built? With the electricity crisis in California, it is very interesting; there were a number of new electricity generating facilities that were going to come online. The economy dipped. Some of them aren't built. Companies have financial reverses, and they don't build. What is to say that is not going to happen with ethanol? Who is to say that all of the facilities the ethanol supporters believe will be there will actually be there? Who is to say there will not be price spikes? Who is going to say there is not going to be an increase in the gas tax? Who is to say we are not going to lose $7 billion from the highway trust fund and that that is not going to result in 300,000 less jobs in this country? How is that good public policy? I think it is unconscionable public policy. It is selfish public policy. It is parochial public policy to the nth degree. I must tell you, to me, this ethanol mandate overcomes everything else in the bill because I do not know any driver--California has some of the longest commutes in the Nation. Drivers sometimes fill their tanks three times a week. Some of our drivers travel 2\1/2\ hours in the morning and 2\1/2\ hours in the evening from the Central Valley to the coast to work. What does that do to the price of gas? It is a huge tax increase. It would be hundreds of dollars a year at 10 cents a gallon. So nobody should think that you are not voting for a tax hike when you vote for this bill. I think that I have covered it except I want, just once again, to repeat these losses for States. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 States that are big losers as to the highway trust fund: California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, and New Jersey. As the distinguished Senator from New York has said, they are going to be forced to pay higher gas prices, to lose money for the trust fund, to put something in their gasoline that they do not need that increases pollution and may well have a detrimental environmental effect. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In response to the majority leader, if I may, Madam President, we do not know at this time whether they would all be germane under the bill. Based on the fact that the majority leader is only reserving seven spaces and will not permit three spaces for this, I object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the majority leader if three amendments would be considered among his amendments. The first would be Senator Schumer's amendment to remove the ethanol mandate, the renewable fuels mandate from the bill; second would be Senator Boxer's amendment to remove the safe harbor provisions relating to liability; and the third would be my amendment to remove PADDs I and PADDs V from the renewable fuels requirement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today is the 32nd anniversary of Earth Day. I think it is fitting, then, to say a few words about the world's No. 1 environmental problem; and that is clearly global warming. It is also fitting because last week the east coast of our country experienced its first April heat wave in more than a quarter of a century. Even more disturbing, in February, an iceberg, the size of Rhode Island, collapsed from the Antarctic ice shelf. The Earth's average temperature has risen 1.3 degrees in the last 100 years. Computer models predict an increase of 2 to 6 degrees over the next century. The 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1986. What does that mean? Today the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide-- that is our No. 1 greenhouse gas--is 30 percent higher than preindustrial levels. This may seem to be a small change, but just a few upticks in temperature can produce catastrophic conditions in weather. So the window of time to do something to curb global warming is closing fast. One of my disappointments with the energy bill is the fact that there is no substantive action taken to reduce our Nation's profligate carbon dioxide pollution. California is in a unique and precarious position. With a population of 34 million people today and an expected population of 50 million by 2020, the State is particularly vulnerable to global climate change. Global warming could make California's water even more scarce, create further flooding, destroy certain agricultural crops, and lead to more frequent and intense Sierra forest fires. Because global warming will likely increase sea levels and since most of the population lives just a stone's throw from the coast, the result could be flooding for millions of Californians. Actually, there has already been a significant rise in sea level along the U.S. coast of about a tenth of an inch per year, which translates into about 11 inches per century. The global sea level is rising about three times faster over the past 100 years compared to the previous 3,000 years. The melting of polar ice and land-based glaciers is expected to contribute a projected one- half to 3-foot sea level rise for the 21st century. That is enormous. Just a 20-inch rise in sea level from climate change could inundate 3,200 to 7,300 square miles of dry land. The Presiding Officer, coming from the State of Hawaii, knows how that could impact his State. This could eliminate as much as 50 percent of North America's coastal wetlands. In northern California, increased winter flows into San Francisco Bay could increase the flooding risk and shift saltwater upstream from the bay. This is already happening. Saltwater levels are rising in the delta areas. This increased saltwater penetration into the delta, which is the source of two-thirds of the drinking water for the State, could affect water quality for millions of Californians. The underlying cause of flooding is also very concerning. Mountain glaciers throughout the world seem to be receding. Glacier National Park may be glacier free by 2070, and the Sierra Nevada mountains may be glacier free soon after. The Greenland ice sheet has already lost roughly 40 percent of its thickness over the past four decades. And shrinking ice caps may very well alter ocean circulation and storm tracks. Rising sea level is not our only concern. Precipitation, rain, has increased by 5 to 10 percent during the last century. Much of this was attributed to heavy and very heavy rainfall events which reaffirm the importance of developing ways of storing this water during wet periods and having it available during times of drought, because global warming means more turbulent weather patterns; it means more hurricanes, more tornadoes. When it rains, the drops of rain are bigger, the rainfall is more intense; ergo, the destruction is greater. The report also pointed out that rising temperatures are likely to result in less snow and more rain, quicker melting of the existing snowpack, particularly at lower elevations, and a shift in runoff to earlier in the year. While total runoff amounts haven't changed, the timing of that runoff is shifting to winter. In fact, the amount of runoff in the spring snowmelt period--that is, April through July--in northern California has actually dropped over the past century from 45 percent to 35 percent. In normal winters, California's water gets stored in snowpacks until spring, and that is when the spring runoff fuels our reservoirs and is there for drinking as well as farming. Drought conditions may worsen, thereby destroying water-dependent crops such as rice, cotton, and alfalfa. For many parts of the western United States, the shifting weather patterns brought on by global warming could mean a greater risk of damage, life-threatening floods. And, of course, southwestern States worry that a 10-percent drop in flows in the Colorado River could lead to a 30-percent drop in water storage behind the reservoirs along the Colorado, not to mention a 30- percent drop in hydroelectric generation on the Colorado itself. The stakes are very high. Unfortunately, our country lags behind when it comes to providing the leadership necessary to stem this growing problem. Amazingly, some of us in Congress even question whether we have a problem in this regard. I believe if we don't act soon, our State, our Nation, and our planet will pay a heavy price. What should we do? The first thing, and the largest way of reducing the No. 1 greenhouse gas, the No. 1 contributor to global warming, is to do something about carbon dioxide emissions in automobiles. That is fuel efficiency for automobiles. We had this debate in the Senate earlier, and a bill presented by the Senator from Massachusetts to increase mileage standards to 35 miles per gallon went down to crashing defeat. There still is another item that I am giving serious consideration to presenting as an amendment, and that is closure of the SUV/light truck loopholes. If SUVs were simply required to meet the same fuel economy standards as automobiles, we would prevent the emission of more than 200 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. This is 3 percent of the country's entire CO2 emissions. This in itself would be the largest single step we could take at this time to reduce global warming. The big three auto manufacturers continue to fight for the status quo. They oppose all increases in fuel efficiency. Last year, Senator Snowe and I and about 13 of our colleagues introduced the SUV/light truck loophole closing legislation. What we said we wanted to do was, over the next 10-year period, bring SUVs and light trucks to the same level as other passenger vehicles. A study has been done by the National Academy of Sciences. Senators Slade Gorton, Dick Bryan, and I began this effort some 3 years ago. I believe the technology is available to make those changes. Instead, our automobile companies have chosen to make SUVs more like tanks than fuel-efficient vehicles. Consequently, we continue to pump out large amounts of carbon dioxide. I believe increased fuel economy standards represent the logical first step in reducing mobile sources of carbon dioxide. We also have to work to expand California's zero emission vehicle program and examine ways to promote cleaner and more efficient battery, electric, fuel cell, or hybrid vehicles. We should also look toward reducing urban sprawl and our dependence on gas-guzzling vehicles. The second action we should take is to increase the use of renewable energy. Energy use by buildings and appliances accounts for a quarter of California's carbon dioxide emissions. We can solve this problem by providing necessary tax credits and other incentives for energy- efficient buildings and appliances. By operating more efficiently, we not only reduce waste and pollution that contribute to global warming, we also save consumers and businesses money in the process. Finally, I deeply believe that the President of the United States should submit the Kyoto Protocol on climate change to the Senate and that the Senate should take up the treaty and ratify it. This historic United Nations framework--established in 1997--aims to reduce greenhouse gases by setting emissions targets and timetables for industrialized nations. To enter into force, the Kyoto Protocol must be ratified by at least 55 countries, accounting for at least 55 percent of the total 1990 carbon dioxide emissions of developed countries. Even though we are only 4 percent of the world's population, we account for 20 percent of the world's energy use. No other country is nearly as profligate. Opponents of the treaty say there is no reason for the United States to do anything to combat global warming unless developing countries, such as China and India, also participate. In my view, this is simply shortsighted. As the most economically advanced nation, what we do sets the standard for the rest of the world--like it or not. So if we want to reduce global warming, if we take this position, I believe other nations will follow. President Clinton signed the treaty in 1998, but it was never submitted to the Senate, in part because the 67 votes needed to pass it were simply not there. If the United States will not ratify this treaty, at an absolute minimum, we need to come up with a way to substantially reduce our emissions on our own. The bottom line is that this energy bill does not, in any way, shape, or form, actually reduce any of these emissions. As the No. 1 contributor of greenhouse gases worldwide, I believe it is our responsibility to show leadership; and every day we wait, we lose an opportunity to reduce the threat of global warming. It is not too much to ask the world's economic and political superpower to provide the necessary leadership to address global warming and, one day, to celebrate an Earth Day in which the United States has truly taken the lead. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think that is exactly correct. What Dennis Ross said, essentially, was the final negotiations, that had been gone over prior to this meeting in the White House, had been gone over with the negotiators--that the implication is, that there was an assent to it by the negotiators, and then when the meeting was held in the White House, Arafat said, yes, but then he presented so many reservations that that clearly countermanded the ``yes.'' So the implication that is drawn from that, I say to the Senator, is that you are absolutely right. When push came to shove, Yasser Arafat said no.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I say to Senator Reid, thank you very much. I appreciate those comments. I think there are many in the Senate who share those comments. What is so significant to me because I know Dennis Ross--and Dennis Ross was really an excellent Middle East envoy, an excellent negotiator, fully knowledgeable about all of the points of convention--and I thought if anybody had a chance of achieving a settlement, it really was Dennis Ross and President Clinton. And, clearly, that did not happen. I think on this ``FOX News Sunday,'' Dennis Ross clearly said why it did not happen. So I appreciate those comments.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in reviewing my press clips this morning, I saw an interview between Brit Hume on ``FOX News Sunday'' and Dennis Ross, President Clinton's Middle East envoy. Many of us have followed closely the negotiations at Camp David, and also at Taba, but never before have we really heard Dennis Ross comment on these negotiations. For the first time this past Sunday, we did. I was really quite surprised by these comments. I thought they were of such significance that I ask unanimous consent to have the entire interview printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on Camp David, let me quote Dennis Ross, President Clinton's Middle East envoy and a person who literally carried out thousands of hours of negotiation. He said: Let me give you the sequence [of events], because I think it puts all this in perspective. Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected borders and would have affected Jerusalem. Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn't. The only new ideas he raised at Camp David was that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus . . . So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there. On the eruption of the Intifada: After the summit, he immediately came back to us and he said, ``We need to have another summit,'' to which we said, ``We just shot our wad. We got a no from you. You're prepared actually to do a deal before we go back to something like that.'' He agreed to set up a private channel between his people and the Israelis, which I joined at the end of August. And there were serious discussions that went on, and we were poised to present our ideas the end of September, which is when the intifada erupted. He knew we were poised to present the ideas. His own people were telling him they looked good. And we asked him to intervene to ensure there wouldn't be violence after the Sharon visit, the day after. He said he would. He didn't lift a finger. On a final plan in December: Now, eventually we were able to get back to a point where private channels between the two sides led each of them to again ask us to present the ideas. This was in early December. We brought the negotiators here. The ideas were presented on December 23 by the President, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians. On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state. On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs. And when it came to security, there would be an international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley. These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side. Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Mr. President, it was January 2, just before President Clinton left office. Met with the president, and I was there-- ``I'' being Dennis Ross-- in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give. He [was] supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that. He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non- existent. He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace. This is commercial aviation. You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't-- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that. So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected. Dennis Ross then went on to say: It's very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was not prepared to accept it. Then on why Arafat said no. Dennis Ross said: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict. Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself. Now, he was asked the question on whether Arafat believed he could get more through violence. This is how Dennis Ross responded. And I quote: It is possible he concluded that. It is possible he thought he could do and get more with the violence. There's no doubt in my mind that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world. And I think there's one other factor. You have to understand that Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn't available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn't accept it. Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to support a bill to name the Santa Ana, CA Post Office as the ``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building.'' I introduced similar legislation the during the last session of Congress, and I hope, with the Senate's support, it will become law during this session. Hector Godinez, who passed away in May of 1999, was a true leader in his community of Santa Ana, CA. He was a pioneer in the United States Postal Service rising from letter carrier to become the first Mexican- American to achieve the rank of District Manager within the United States Postal Service. He served with honor in World War II, was a ardent civil rights activist and an active participant in civic organizations and local government. After graduation from Santa Ana High School, Mr. Godinez enlisted into the armed services and was a tank commander in World War II under General George Patton. For his service, he earned a bronze star for bravery under fire and was also awarded a purple heart for wounds received in battle. Upon his return home in 1946, Mr. Godinez started his first of 48 years of distinguished service as a United States postal worker. Hector Godinez was a true pillar within the Santa Ana community devoting his tireless energy to such civic groups as the Orange County District Boy Scouts of America, Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce, Orange County YMCA and National President of the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the country's oldest Hispanic civil rights organizations. On behalf of the Godinez family and the people of Santa Ana, CA, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill to name the Santa Ana, CA Post in his honor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on Thursday, Senator McConnell and I introduced legislation that had findings as well as bill language containing some sanctions. The title of the legislation is the Arafat Accountability Act. I do not want to argue that now, but I do want to point out, in a column in this morning's New York Times, Mr. William Safire, under the title ``Democrats vs. Israel,'' made a statement about this resolution, saying it has been blocked by Majority Leader Tom Daschle. This is not true. Senator McConnell and I presented the bill on Thursday. We indicated we were not pushing for its passage at the present time, that we wanted time to go out and achieve a number of cosponsors. That was the reason for any delay. So I would like the record to clearly reflect that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to support a bill to name the Santa Ana, CA Post Office as the ``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building.'' I introduced similar legislation the during the last session of Congress, and I hope, with the Senate's support, it will become law during this session. Hector Godinez, who passed away in May of 1999, was a true leader in his community of Santa Ana, CA. He was a pioneer in the United States Postal Service rising from letter carrier to become the first Mexican- American to achieve the rank of District Manager within the United States Postal Service. He served with honor in World War II, was a ardent civil rights activist and an active participant in civic organizations and local government. After graduation from Santa Ana High School, Mr. Godinez enlisted into the armed services and was a tank commander in World War II under General George Patton. For his service, he earned a bronze star for bravery under fire and was also awarded a purple heart for wounds received in battle. Upon his return home in 1946, Mr. Godinez started his first of 48 years of distinguished service as a United States postal worker. Hector Godinez was a true pillar within the Santa Ana community devoting his tireless energy to such civic groups as the Orange County District Boy Scouts of America, Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce, Orange County YMCA and National President of the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the country's oldest Hispanic civil rights organizations. On behalf of the Godinez family and the people of Santa Ana, CA, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill to name the Santa Ana, CA Post in his honor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object, so that I can advise Senator McConnell, my understanding of the unanimous consent agreement is Senator Kohl, Senator Dayton, and then Senator McConnell and I will have a chance to introduce legislation in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I understand the context of the Senator's argument, what he is saying is that New York does not need an oxygen requirement, that New York can use reformulated gasoline and can meet the clean air standards by this reformulated gasoline, and California as well does not need an oxygen requirement; we can meet clean air standards without an oxygenate requirement and, where we do not meet clean air standards--summer months in Southern California--can use ethanol and we do not need an around-the-year requirement. So if I understand the Senator correctly, his position then is exempt New York, exempt California, from the strictures of this bill, and exempt us from an oxygenate requirement. Is that the position of the Senator?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I realize that. I find myself in agreement with the Senator. What I have wanted all along is for California--because we do not have an infrastructure in place in the state and we know there is going to be a price spike--to have the EPA sign off on a waiver.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his work and leadership on this issue. We are here because we believe any hope for peace in the Middle East must begin with the complete renunciation of terrorism by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and a strong, unwavering commitment to bring such terrorism to an end. We also believe that only with the leadership of the United States can there be a peaceful settlement and resolution of issues in the area. For the past 18 months, as the violence of the second Intifada has increased, the United States has consistently called upon Yasser Arafat to halt the terrorism he pledged to end in the Oslo accords. Unfortunately, Arafat has incited the violence and helped financially support the terrorists. We now know that one of Arafat's top advisers is directly involved in financing the illegal weapons purchases and terror activities of the Al Aqsa Brigade. We now know, according to documents seized by the Israeli Defense Forces, that Arafat was directly involved in efforts to illegally smuggle more than 50 tons of arms into Israel from Iran a few months ago. We now know that Arafat has failed to confiscate weapons of terrorist suspects. We know he has failed to arrest and hold suspected terrorists and is harboring suspects in the assassination of an Israeli Cabinet official in his own headquarters in Ramallah. In fact, much of the terrorism emanates from the heart of the PLO, carried out by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, composed of members of Arafat's own Fatah faction. Since the beginning of the year, 209 people have been murdered and more than 1,500 injured in these suicide bombings. These are children, women, men--innocent civilians. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed credit for numerous of these attacks, including on March 31, central Jerusalem, killing 3 people; March 3, killing 10 people in west Jerusalem; and January 31, when the first female bomber killed an elderly Israeli. A document seized by the Israel Defense Forces in Ramallah, signed by Arafat himself, approves funding for the Al Aqsa Brigades. On February 3, Arafat wrote a New York Times op-ed opposing violence against Israel. Yet he declared a few days later, in Ramallah, that ``we will make the lives of the infidels Hell'' and led a chant of ``A million martyrs marching to Jerusalem!'' And this past week, while Arafat spoke out against terrorism, his wife, in Paris, said she would be proud if she had a son who became a suicide bomber. I believe, sincerely, that this is not a leader who wants peace for his people. In fact, I believe the suicide bombings have been precisely calculated to destroy any chance for peace. If these suicide bombers cannot be stopped, the situation is going to continue to deteriorate, Israel will have to continue to exercise its legitimate right of self-defense, and the result will be full-scale military conflagration. Israel has done no less--and certainly no more--than what any country would do to defend itself. There has been a lamentable loss of life in the West Bank. And I grieve for it because I believe, very deeply, every life--Israeli or Palestinian--has equal value. But let us not forget that Israel's military operation has been one based on specific intelligence information, with specific military goals--to act directly against terrorists who before the start of the operation were carrying out daily suicide bombings against Israeli civilians--and carried out with considerable restraint. Certainly, Israel has not gone beyond what the United States and our allies have been doing in Afghanistan, or the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland, or the bloody French campaign in Algeria--let alone, what Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, or Iran do on almost a daily basis to quell dissent. Does anyone doubt that a suicide bombing in Cairo, or Riyadh, or Damascus, or Beirut, or Paris would be met with the strongest of reactions, as was the 9-11 terrorist incident here? There simply is no excuse for arming a teenage girl with bombs around her waist to blow up women and children. And this kind of terror is happening over and over again. So the time is now for this Senate to stand up, in a strong, unified voice, to condemn the actions of Chairman Arafat and his PLO and the terrorism that has spawned. Chairman Arafat has said one thing in English and another in Arabic. Chairman Arafat fans the flames and incites the people. We offer this bill, after witnessing the failure of efforts by Messrs. Tenet, Mitchell, Zinni, and, at least initially, Secretary Powell to break the deadlock largely because Chairman Arafat has not brought to an end the suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism. This legislation would require the President to report to Congress every 90 days, detailing the acts of terrorism engaged in by the Palestinian Liberation Organization or any of its constituent elements and, based on that report, to designate the PLO or its constituent elements as terrorist organizations, or explain why not. The legislation also finds that Chairman Arafat and the PLO have violated his commitment to peace through the recent purchase of 50 tons of offensive weaponry from Iran; that they are responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent Israelis and the wounding of thousands more since October 2000, and that they have been directly implicated in funding and supporting terrorists who have claimed responsibility for a number of homicide bombings inside Israel. Because of the failure by the Palestinian Liberation Organization to renounce terrorism, the act would, A, downgrade PLO representation in the United States to before Oslo; B, place travel restrictions on senior PLO representatives at the United Nations; C, confiscate assets of PLO or Palestinian Authority or Chairman Arafat in the United States; D, deny visas to Chairman Arafat or other officials of the PLO or the Palestinian Authority. It is important to note that the President may, on a case-by-case basis, waive this provision based on national security considerations. The legislation presents a sense of the Senate outlining the first steps needed to reach peace. First, the United States should urge an immediate and unconditional end to all terrorist activities and commencement of a cease-fire. Two, Arafat and the PLO should turn over to Israel for detention and prosecution those wanted by the Israeli Government for the assassination of Israeli Minister of Tourism, Mr. Zeevi. Third, Arafat and the PLO should take broad and immediate action to condemn all acts of terrorism, including and especially suicide bombing, which has resulted in the murder of over 125 Israeli men, women, and children in the month of March alone and the injury of hundreds more; confiscate and destroy the infrastructure of terrorism, including weapons, bomb factories and materials, as well as end all financial support of terrorist activities; and to take positive steps to urge all Arab nations and individuals to cease funding terrorist operations and the families of terrorists. Finally, the President of the United States, working with the international community, with Israel and the Arab States, should continue the search for a comprehensive peace in the region. There is no question that there are serious differences to be reconciled between Israel and the Palestinian people and that only a political settlement can hopefully bring the violence in this region to an end. I believe the 1967 borders, borders which have the imprimatur of the United Nations, hold the key to a settlement. Despite serious differences about the refugee problem, ongoing security, and the status of Jerusalem, I believe peace can be achieved through negotiation and agreement. But I know it cannot be achieved through violence. The necessary first step is the end of the violence, the terrorism, and the suicide bombing. Once that is done, we are firmly convinced that if leaders on both sides want peace, the rest can all be worked out.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his work and leadership on this issue. We are here because we believe any hope for peace in the Middle East must begin with the complete renunciation of terrorism by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and a strong, unwavering commitment to bring such terrorism to an end. We also believe that only with the leadership of the United States can there be a peaceful settlement and resolution of issues in the area. For the past 18 months, as the violence of the second Intifada has increased, the United States has consistently called upon Yasser Arafat to halt the terrorism he pledged to end in the Oslo accords. Unfortunately, Arafat has incited the violence and helped financially support the terrorists. We now know that one of Arafat's top advisers is directly involved in financing the illegal weapons purchases and terror activities of the Al Aqsa Brigade. We now know, according to documents seized by the Israeli Defense Forces, that Arafat was directly involved in efforts to illegally smuggle more than 50 tons of arms into Israel from Iran a few months ago. We now know that Arafat has failed to confiscate weapons of terrorist suspects. We know he has failed to arrest and hold suspected terrorists and is harboring suspects in the assassination of an Israeli Cabinet official in his own headquarters in Ramallah. In fact, much of the terrorism emanates from the heart of the PLO, carried out by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, composed of members of Arafat's own Fatah faction. Since the beginning of the year, 209 people have been murdered and more than 1,500 injured in these suicide bombings. These are children, women, men--innocent civilians. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed credit for numerous of these attacks, including on March 31, central Jerusalem, killing 3 people; March 3, killing 10 people in west Jerusalem; and January 31, when the first female bomber killed an elderly Israeli. A document seized by the Israel Defense Forces in Ramallah, signed by Arafat himself, approves funding for the Al Aqsa Brigades. On February 3, Arafat wrote a New York Times op-ed opposing violence against Israel. Yet he declared a few days later, in Ramallah, that ``we will make the lives of the infidels Hell'' and led a chant of ``A million martyrs marching to Jerusalem!'' And this past week, while Arafat spoke out against terrorism, his wife, in Paris, said she would be proud if she had a son who became a suicide bomber. I believe, sincerely, that this is not a leader who wants peace for his people. In fact, I believe the suicide bombings have been precisely calculated to destroy any chance for peace. If these suicide bombers cannot be stopped, the situation is going to continue to deteriorate, Israel will have to continue to exercise its legitimate right of self-defense, and the result will be full-scale military conflagration. Israel has done no less--and certainly no more--than what any country would do to defend itself. There has been a lamentable loss of life in the West Bank. And I grieve for it because I believe, very deeply, every life--Israeli or Palestinian--has equal value. But let us not forget that Israel's military operation has been one based on specific intelligence information, with specific military goals--to act directly against terrorists who before the start of the operation were carrying out daily suicide bombings against Israeli civilians--and carried out with considerable restraint. Certainly, Israel has not gone beyond what the United States and our allies have been doing in Afghanistan, or the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland, or the bloody French campaign in Algeria--let alone, what Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, or Iran do on almost a daily basis to quell dissent. Does anyone doubt that a suicide bombing in Cairo, or Riyadh, or Damascus, or Beirut, or Paris would be met with the strongest of reactions, as was the 9-11 terrorist incident here? There simply is no excuse for arming a teenage girl with bombs around her waist to blow up women and children. And this kind of terror is happening over and over again. So the time is now for this Senate to stand up, in a strong, unified voice, to condemn the actions of Chairman Arafat and his PLO and the terrorism that has spawned. Chairman Arafat has said one thing in English and another in Arabic. Chairman Arafat fans the flames and incites the people. We offer this bill, after witnessing the failure of efforts by Messrs. Tenet, Mitchell, Zinni, and, at least initially, Secretary Powell to break the deadlock largely because Chairman Arafat has not brought to an end the suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism. This legislation would require the President to report to Congress every 90 days, detailing the acts of terrorism engaged in by the Palestinian Liberation Organization or any of its constituent elements and, based on that report, to designate the PLO or its constituent elements as terrorist organizations, or explain why not. The legislation also finds that Chairman Arafat and the PLO have violated his commitment to peace through the recent purchase of 50 tons of offensive weaponry from Iran; that they are responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent Israelis and the wounding of thousands more since October 2000, and that they have been directly implicated in funding and supporting terrorists who have claimed responsibility for a number of homicide bombings inside Israel. Because of the failure by the Palestinian Liberation Organization to renounce terrorism, the act would, A, downgrade PLO representation in the United States to before Oslo; B, place travel restrictions on senior PLO representatives at the United Nations; C, confiscate assets of PLO or Palestinian Authority or Chairman Arafat in the United States; D, deny visas to Chairman Arafat or other officials of the PLO or the Palestinian Authority. It is important to note that the President may, on a case-by-case basis, waive this provision based on national security considerations. The legislation presents a sense of the Senate outlining the first steps needed to reach peace. First, the United States should urge an immediate and unconditional end to all terrorist activities and commencement of a cease-fire. Two, Arafat and the PLO should turn over to Israel for detention and prosecution those wanted by the Israeli Government for the assassination of Israeli Minister of Tourism, Mr. Zeevi. Third, Arafat and the PLO should take broad and immediate action to condemn all acts of terrorism, including and especially suicide bombing, which has resulted in the murder of over 125 Israeli men, women, and children in the month of March alone and the injury of hundreds more; confiscate and destroy the infrastructure of terrorism, including weapons, bomb factories and materials, as well as end all financial support of terrorist activities; and to take positive steps to urge all Arab nations and individuals to cease funding terrorist operations and the families of terrorists. Finally, the President of the United States, working with the international community, with Israel and the Arab States, should continue the search for a comprehensive peace in the region. There is no question that there are serious differences to be reconciled between Israel and the Palestinian people and that only a political settlement can hopefully bring the violence in this region to an end. I believe the 1967 borders, borders which have the imprimatur of the United Nations, hold the key to a settlement. Despite serious differences about the refugee problem, ongoing security, and the status of Jerusalem, I believe peace can be achieved through negotiation and agreement. But I know it cannot be achieved through violence. The necessary first step is the end of the violence, the terrorism, and the suicide bombing. Once that is done, we are firmly convinced that if leaders on both sides want peace, the rest can all be worked out.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues supporting this amendment. There is one thing I would like to point out. I have serious concerns about the visa waiver program. I have concerns about its wisdom in the first place. When you have 23 million people coming in without visas, from 29 different countries, it becomes so easy for passports to be misplaced and for people who are threats to get into this program. I think we have to watch it very carefully. We have to depend on the fact that the strictures in this bill are meant to be carried out. I, for one, would not have a problem with doing away with the program if we find any more irregularities in it. We have actual instances where terrorists have used this visa waiver program. We know 100,000 passports were missing. We know they were not reported in a timely way. This bill requires, first of all, the thefts of passports, or that passports are missing, be reported immediately. Then the INS, within 72 hours, would have to enter them into an interoperable database, assuming we get to that interoperable database. Until that system is established, the INS would enter the information into an existing data system. I, for one, am going to ask my staff to watch very carefully as to how these passport numbers get entered, and I will try to do my level best to see it is carried out. If it is not, I think we will have to go back and assess the wisdom of this entire program. I yield the floor.