Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to update and somewhat improve the so-called sugar program. The sugar subsidy program has been driving the domestic cane refinery industry out of existence, and it has eliminated thousands of good jobs. This amendment helps strike a new balance between saving our Nation's domestic refinery jobs and protecting sugar producers from foreign competition. What this amendment does is ensure that the amount of sugar allowed to come into the United States actually makes it to the market. The amendment would reallocate the unfilled portion of a country's quota when that country doesn't fill its quota, which happens almost annually. The Secretary of Agriculture does have the ability under present law to reallocate the quota, but it is a fight every year for domestic refineries to get enough sugar to refine, and it is also a fight to get the Secretary--regardless of whether it is a Democratic or Republican administration--to make this reallocation. The amendment would allow refineries to obtain more sugar under the quota by taking some allocation from nations not exporting as much sugar as they are allowed and giving it to nations that would export more sugar to the United States. The amendment is supported by the United States Cane Sugar Refiners' Association and the following independent refineries: C&H Sugar in Crockett, CA; Colonial Sugar in Gramercy, LA; Savannah Foods in Port Wentworth, GA; Imperial Sugar in Sugar Land, TX. In the past, we have failed to balance the refineries and the growers of the sugar industry successfully. This farm bill represents an opportunity to make a change before more refineries are forced to close. This amendment will help the country's sugar refining industry. It will not strip the domestic producers of any benefits. Something must be done to save our sugar refining industry. Since 1981, 13 out of 23 cane refineries in the United States have been forced out of business. Here they are on this chart: Hawaii, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Missouri, and Louisiana. The loss of jobs between 1981 and today is over 4,000. Those refineries that do remain open today struggle to survive under what are very onerous import restrictions. At the end of the last year, we had a debate and the Senate overwhelmingly, regretfully, voted to continue the sugar subsidy program. I continue to oppose these sugar subsidies, but I recognize there are not the votes to eliminate the sugar program right now. I first became involved in this issue when David Koncelik, the president and CEO of the California and Hawaiian Sugar Company, known as C&H, informed me in 1994 that his 88-year-old refinery in Crockett, CA, was forced to temporarily close because it could not get cane sugar on the market to refine. C&H is the largest refinery in the United States. It is the only such facility on the west coast. It refines about 15 percent of the total cane sugar consumed in the United States. The company is capable of producing and selling about 800,000 tons of refined sugar annually. It is currently producing about 700,000 tons. Anyone who has driven from San Francisco to Sacramento and crossed the Carquinez Straits, as you go on to the bridge, you look down and you see this old, large brick refinery known as C&H. All of us grew up to the C&H commercial where they sang ``pure cane sugar from Hawaii''-- something like that--and I have seen the struggle go on year after year. Hawaii is C&H's sole source of domestic raw cane sugar. But the Hawaii sugarcane industry has been in decline now for over a decade. In fact, from 1996 through 2001, cane acreage fell by 50 percent in Hawaii, according to the Congressional Research Service. C&H can only make up for the lack of Hawaiian cane output by importing cane from other countries. There is the rub. Our Nation's restrictive sugar import quota limits the amount of sugar available for C&H to refine. Simply put, C&H has been unable to get enough sugar to refine and has been forced to send workers home on several occasions. In 1981, C&H had 1,313 employees. It is a union plant. In 1995, the company had 812. By 1999, that number dropped to 580 employees. Today, the refinery employs 565 workers. The U.S. sugar refining industry will continue to be at risk unless we adjust this imbalance in the industry and reform the sugar program. This amendment provides an opportunity to provide immediate relief to C&H and the other domestic refineries without compromising one single benefit to sugar producers. It is going to be interesting to see if we can get it through, because even though it does not take anything from them, they still oppose this. I have a hard time understanding why. This is not an attack. It is simply a way to update and improve the quota system. Let me repeat that. This amendment is not an attack on the sugar program. Sugar imports have been restricted almost continuously since 1934 in order to support high prices for domestic sugarcane and sugar beet producers. The USTR, working with the Department of Agriculture, allocates shares of the quota among 40 designated countries. Since the 1994 Uruguay Round of trade talks, the United States has allowed the designated countries to export 1.256 million tons of sugar to the United States under the quota. Today's sugar import restrictions are based on a formula derived from trade patterns that prevailed over a quarter of a century ago, and therein lies the rub and the major problem for domestic refiners such as C&H. The quota does not accurately reflect how much countries are able to export to the United States. Some of the 40 designated countries have even been forced to provide an export allocation when they do not export any sugar at all. Does that make sense? I think not. In fact, according to the GAO, on the average, from 1993 through 1998, 10 of the 40 countries were net importers of sugar. This means they do not export sugar to the United States if they need to import sugar to their own country. Therefore, that allocation, that part of the quota, goes unused. Our refineries that would like to buy that raw sugar on the open market cannot buy it. It makes no sense. Other countries continue to export sugar, but they have substantially reduced their production. For example, since the allocations were made, the Dominican Republic has experienced a 50-percent decline in sugar production, and the Philippines, a 27-percent drop, but the allocation for both countries has remained the same. If the Philippines is not going to export and the Dominican Republic is not going to export their quota, all we want to do is let some country get that shortfall and put it on the market to give our domestic sugar refiners the opportunity to buy it. Some countries have substantially increased their sugar production but not seen the amount they are allowed to export to the United States increase. For example, since the allocations were made, Guatemala, Colombia, and Australia have increased their production by 219 percent, 96 percent, and 61 percent, respectively, while their shares of the allocation have remained the same. Some countries have similar allocations under the quota despite dramatically different levels of sugar exports. For example, Brazil and the Philippines are both allowed to export 14 percent of the total quota, but Brazil exports 21 times more sugar than the Philippines worldwide. It is unacceptable that quota allocations have not been revised for 20 years, or 2 decades, despite dramatic changes in the ability of many countries to produce and export sugar. Is there a way to update the sugar export amounts allowed into the United States without adversely impacting growers? I believe there is, and the amendment I have offered will provide the slight change to the sugar export quota that is desperately needed. The United States has imported on the average about 3 percent less sugar than the quota allowed from the 1996-through-1998 allocation because some countries did not fill their allocations. So there is that 3 percent out there. Since the sugar quota does not reflect the current capability of many countries to produce and export sugar, the GAO has concluded: The United States Trade Representative's current process for allocating the sugar tariff rate quota does not insure that all of the sugar allowed under the quota reaches the United States market. There is the point. There is the differential. The sugar that does not reach the market in the quota should be made available. I would like to read some of the July 1999 report on the sugar program issued by the GAO: The current allocation process has resulted in fewer sugar imports than allowed under the tariff rate quota. From 1996 through 1998, the United States raw sugar imports averaged 75,000 tons less annually than the amount USDA allowed the United States Trade Representative to allocate under the tariff rate quota. According to domestic refinery officials, this shortfall has exacerbated recent declines in the overall availability of raw cane sugar on the U.S. market. If there is a shortfall in sugar exported to the United States, and refineries are shut down because there is not enough cane to refine, we need to allow the quota to be flexible when there is this shortfall. The amendment I have offered will reallocate unused sugar in the quota to other countries when there is an export shortfall. This is exactly what the USTR did as recently as 1995. It is also the precise recommendation of the GAO in its 1999 report. In suggesting change to the sugar program, the GAO advised: Changes could include such actions as providing a means of reallocating the current quota. All this amendment does is ensure the amount of sugar allowed to come into the United States is actually making it to the market. How is that so threatening to people? This opportunity to reallocate the quota when there is a shortfall will not hurt growers because the shortfall does not represent enough sugar to affect price. Of course, that is what they will say, that this will affect price. It will not affect price. It has not affected price before. There is no reason to believe it will affect it now. In the 1999 report, the GAO found: Because the shortfalls in the tariff rate quota reduced total U.S. sugar supplies by less than 1 percent, they had a minimal effect on the domestic price of sugar. If you do not trust me, trust the GAO. The inefficiencies of the current import restrictions demand that Congress accept this amendment. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It will help make the sugar program operate more effectively and efficiently. If this body can't accept this simple amendment, it clearly tells me that not only is the sugar allocation outdated, but it is essentially controlled to manipulate so certain people can do business while others cannot. These refineries are very important. My Crockett refinery is the major source of jobs in that entire Crockett community. Each year, the CEO has to come back here to plead with his representatives in Congress: I can't buy enough sugar on the market to keep my people employed. I pay them good salaries. It is important I be able to operate and refine sugar. I want to buy it on the open market and I can't--is simply wrong. It is flawed public policy. I ask for this body's support to pass this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the New York Times.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask that the amendment be set aside. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINSTEIN

Mr. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Dorgan and Senator Grassley that would limit farm support payments. The best way to think about this amendment is to understand its three components. The amendment would: (1) Establish a payment limitation ensuring that government support will provide only a true safety net for the needy farmer; (2) Require individuals receiving farm support payments to be farmers; and (3) Exclude millionaires from receiving any farm payment. First, this amendment will reduce already existing payment limitations. A limit on the total annual payments a person can receive was first enacted in the 1970 farm bill and has remained in place since. Under current law, payments are limited to $460,000 per farm. The Senate Farm Bill would slightly increase this payment limitation to $500,000. Farm groups object to any further reduction in the payment limitation--as the Dorgan-Grassley amendment proposes--because of the high input costs that large farms with high value crops have. For individual farmers, the Dorgan-Grassley amendment would limit payments to $225,000. For married couples, the limit would be $275,000. I believe this is a reasonable amount. Right now, about 10 percent of the farms get 60 percent of the government payments. Last year, the Federal government paid California farmers $780 million in subsidies, with primarily large cotton and rice-producing farms receiving 51 percent of the money. But only 9 percent of California's farmers get crop payments. Second, the Dorgan-Grassley amendment requires the person receiving the payment to be a farmer. A tenant must supply at least 50 percent of the labor or 1,000 hours, whichever is less, for a farm in order to collect a payment. This means family members receiving payments have to be actively farming, not living in New York City and listed as a ``farmer'' for the sole purpose of doubling the current payment limitation. These farm payments are real dollars paid for by taxpayers. And there have been a flood of newspaper articles recently to shed light on exactly who is receiving them. Third, under this amendment, an owner or producer will not be eligible for a payment or loan if the owner's income for the previous 3 taxable years exceeds $2.5 million. Nothing in current law prevents millionaires from receiving federal payments. Farm groups object to this because they object to any ``net income'' test. This amendment would save $1,295 billion over 10 years, which will alternatively fund the following: $810 million for various nutrition programs, including: $250 million to raise the standard deduction for food stamp eligibility to households with children. $515 million to increase the shelter expense deduction. And $34 million to help with participant expenses in education and training programs. $330 million for the Initiative for Future Food and Agriculture Systems, which the University of California benefits from. This initiative provides competitive grants for biotechnology, genomics, food safety, natural resources, and farm profitability. $101 million for research and development for a specialty crop insurance initiative. $5 million for Beginning Farmer & Rancher Ownership Loan Account Funds. And $46 million for Non-program farm Loan Deficiency Payment eligibility and to Restore Beneficial Interest with regards to LDPs for the 2001 crop. I will vote for payment limits to restrict millionaires from receiving federal farm payments when they obviously do not need them. I believe we should ensure farm payments provide a safety net for the truly needy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, as I stated on the floor earlier this week, I support a 13 week extension of unemployment Insurance. I do so as an issue of basic fairness to help and protect those who have been hurt by the economic downturn. Unemployed workers need assistance now. There are people in my State of California, and indeed across the country, who need an extension not because they have not been looking for a job, but because the downturn in the economy has made jobs difficult to keep, and even more difficult to find. As I stated earlier this week, there are over a million people unemployed in California, and since September 11, unemployment benefits have run out for 190,000 Californians. Because an average of 40 percent of Californians who go on unemployment exhaust their regular unemployment benefits, over 360,000 people in California alone could be helped by receiving this 13-week extension. These are the people who would be immediately helped by an extension of unemployment benefits. Throughout the United States, workers are running out of unemployment benefits while competing for less and less open jobs. In New York, there are 515,000 people without jobs, and over 90,000 of them have exhausted their unemployment benefits since September 11. The same is true for 86,000 Texans, 47,000 Floridians, and 52,000 people from Illinois. In Pennsylvania, over 300,000 people are unemployed, and almost 47,000 of them have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Extending unemployment coverage will benefit more than 600,000 people nationwide, and help revive an economy that needs a boost to get back on its feet. Since the program's inception in 1934, Unemployment Insurance has served time and again to act as a stabilizing device--providing direct economic assistance to people who are likely to spend any additional money in providing basic needs for themselves and their families. The need is no different now. As an issue of basic fairness, I strongly believe that the Senate should act to extend UI benefits by 13 weeks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for his comments. The largest retirement pension system in the United States is in the State of California. Those systems have had very significant losses. I think his comments are very well designed and should be taken as a major indicator of fault and problems. I am sure when the hearings are held that as a member of the Commerce Committee, the Senator will have the good opportunity to point this out very clearly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want to repeat something that I stated over the weekend. It will be my intent to vote against any large stimulus package at this time. I do so because I believe a stimulus package right now is not necessary. I believe, when compounded with the President's budget and other items, it actually works as a significant detriment to us doing what we need to do, which is have a balanced budget. In his remarks last month before the Senate Budget Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said an interesting thing. I would like to quote him. He said: There have been signs recently that some of the forces that have been restraining the economy over the past year are starting to diminish and that activity is beginning to firm. And it appears the economy is stabilizing without the need for a stimulus. Among the positive signs the distinguished Mr. Greenspan cited are that businesses are working off their inventories of unsold goods, freeing them to increase production and hire more workers. According to the latest economic reports, the moving 4-week average of jobless rates continues to dip while the pace of manufacturing activity throughout our country surges. Unemployment appears to have stabilized. The manufacturing index is up. The consumer confidence index is up. Orders for durable goods are up. Most importantly, we notice a slight increase in gross domestic product. Although it may not be much, it signals that the worst may well be over. I agree with Chairman Greenspan's assessment that ``while 3 months ago, it was clearly a desirable action'' to pass a stimulus measure, we did not, and, ``fortunately, it turned out we didn't need that particular [action].'' If you sort of put this in context, the House has passed a very large stimulus package. The debate is going on in this Chamber on two stimulus packages. They then need to go to conference, and the differences would have to be resolved. It is very clear to me that by the time the stimulus package goes into effect, it really would have negligible effect. Although there is still a ways to go before the economy is fully stabilized and is growing again, I believe we are moving in the right direction. I want to point out that now the President's budget has come to the Hill with very large increases in defense, the end program, if we begin them, is that we must continue them over the next 5-year period, and large increases in homeland security, some of which will be new expenditures and will need continuation in this post 9-11 era. Making large cuts in many domestic programs with dollars being spent on a so- called stimulus, to me, becomes even more questionable. In fact, many of the measures which have been proposed by the President and which have been under discussion in the Congress over the past few months are not, to my mind, well calibrated to provide a real stimulus impact. They add to the tax package we passed this past June. I voted for it because I felt at the time it was well deserved. The economy was strong, the surplus was up, and it is not unreasonable to expect when both of those are present that the taxpayers should be enabled to keep more of their money. I basically believe that is good public policy. However, in September we began to see an unprecedented event add to our problems. That unprecedented event, of course, has brought on the need for homeland security and increased defense allocation. Downstream, this means that these two items can well crowd out also vitally needed domestic programs. The transportation budget has been cut dramatically, I understand. Transportation is a stimulus. Transportation puts people to work. The transportation budget provides good jobs. I suspect, if that cut goes through, we will find those jobs will diminish. There are many elements of the plan the majority leader has proposed which I believe are important--not for their stimulative impact but as an issue of basic fairness and past practice for those of us in this body. The first is the 13-week extension of unemployment insurance. I would support this as, again, a matter of the practice of this body. I was present in the 1990s when we extended unemployment insurance at least twice that I can remember. That was during the periods of recession. According to the Department of Labor, every dollar used for unemployment benefit results in a $2.15 increase in the gross domestic product. That is the sum total of goods and services in our country. Today, over 1 million people are unemployed. In my State, that is over 13 percent of the country's total unemployment. Since September 11, unemployment benefits have run out for 190,000 Californians. Since September 11, over 900,000 Californians have started receiving unemployment benefits, which shows the impact of that dastardly event on September 11. It is estimated that 300,000 people in California alone would be helped by this 13-week extension. Nationally, extending unemployment coverage will benefit more than 600,000 people, and again continue to revive the economy. I think we should do it because we have done it before, because it is the right thing to do, and because it is the fair thing to do. There is one other part of the leader's package that I would support. That is the temporary change in the Federal Medicaid Assistance Program, known as FMAP. That is a formula that provides States with additional funds to make sure that health care is available to those in need. It is a measure supported by virtually all of our country's Governors. It is supported because the recession essentially has pushed more people into Medicaid. In fact, one study has found that just an increase in unemployment from 4.5 to 6.5 percent, which is what transpired last year, adds 800,000 adults, 260,000 disabled, and 2.1 million children to the Medicaid rolls of our 50 States. I would support the 1-year increase in the Medicaid assistance, or FMAP, by 1.5 percent to every State, and an additional 1.5 percent to States with higher than average unemployment. This is essentially the same proposal that is in the majority leader's stimulus package. I have submitted an amendment which would do only those two things. I hope, if the time is appropriate, that I will be able to offer that amendment. I think these are two elements of the Daschle package which are worthy of support. Madam President, I say these words because I have said them in other places, and I think I ought to say them in this Senate Chamber. It would be my hope that we could pass the extension of unemployment insurance and the FMAP Medicaid changes--the FMAP amounts to about $5 billion--and do so as a matter of fairness. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my sincere disappointment that the foreign operations conference report before us includes a provision that will suspend the certification process worldwide. This goes far beyond what this Senate passed just weeks ago. The certification process is this Nation's best--and in many cases, only--mechanism to persuade problem nations to work with us as we try to stem the flow of illegal narcotics across our borders and onto our streets. The purpose of the certification profess is not to punish any one individual country, but rather to hold all countries to a minimum standard of cooperation in the war against illegal drugs. In that regard, I believe it is the most effective system we have available to us. There simply is no alternative. Many have tried to turn the certification issue into a simplistic clash between the United States and Mexico. To be sure, in the past that relationship has received the most attention. But in fact, there are more than 30 countries that undergo an annual certification review under current law--including countries like Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Burma, and even China. Afghanistan, for instance, has been decertified 10 out of 12 times they have faced review. As a result, U.S. aid has been withheld from the Nation. Burma, also, has been decertified 10 out of the 12 times it has faced review. It is interesting to note that Mexico has never once been decertified. So this is not a U.S.-Mexico issue. This is an issue affecting our global efforts to reduce the supply of drugs to the United States. Suspending the certification process worldwide means that countries failing to cooperate in the drug war will face no penalty for that failure. And that is a step we should not be taking. Now is not the time to be letting up on the war on drugs. The connection between terrorist and narcotics traffickers is real, and closer than ever before. In Colombia, in Afghanistan, and in other places around the world, drug money helps terrorist organizations carry out violent, destructive, and even deadly acts of terror against citizens of the United States and other countries. The Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that last year, Afghanistan supplied 70 percent of the world's opium. Money from the drug trade in Afghanistan helped keep the Taliban in power, and some of that money undoubtedly made it to the al Qaeda organization. In Colombia, the FARC narco-terrorists make millions every year in extortion and protection money from drug traffickers. This money helps them maintain control over an area within Colombia the size of Switzerland, and funds activities that include kidnaping and even murder. Even beyond the drug-terror connection, the drug trade around the world is ever-developing. Supplies of many drugs are near or at all time highs. In the last few years alone, the drug known as Ecstasy has become a virtual phenomenon among young people in this country, and is smuggled into the United States from countries as diverse as Mexico and the Netherlands, Belgium and Israel. If anything, this administration and this Congress should be taking the certification process even more seriously--not moving to abandon it wholesale. If anything, the real threat of decertification should be used more often as a tool to modify the behavior of problem nations, not less often. To do as this conference report does and completely stop the certification process for all nations will essentially remove the one good means we have of encouraging foreign nations to work with us in reducing the supply of illegal drugs to the United States. This moratorium is a mistake, plain and simple. I do want to again stress that a partial moratorium is warranted, particularly for the government of Mexico. I believe that Mexican President Vicente Fox has shown a clear willingness to work with the United States in the drug war, much like the government of Colombia has over the last few years in the battle against strong drug cartels. That is why a temporary moratorium on the certification process in this hemisphere makes some sense. And that is why I did not object to such a moratorium when this issue first came up on the floor of the Senate. But expanding the moratorium to countries that have shown far less cooperation, and continue to do little to keep drug traffickers from producing drugs or moving drugs through their territory, is a step backward in the war against drugs. I feel very strongly about this issue, and it is my belief that this provision may very well be an attempt by the opponents of the certification process to begin the process of dismantling certification altogether. Well, let's just say that while I am happy to work with my colleagues to consider reasonable ways to address the certification issue-- especially, in cases like Mexico, where the record may warrant changes--I intend to make sure that next year's foreign operations legislation does not reflect such a poorly conceived approach to this issue. Bioterrorism

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am encouraged that the Senate is poised to pass legislation bolstering security at our Nation's 361 seaports. I thank the members of the Senate Commerce Committee for their hard work on this bill. While often out of the public eye, ports and harbors across the United States are America's economic gateways. Every year, U.S. ports handle over 800 million tons of cargo, valued at approximately $600 billion. If you exclude border commerce with Mexico and Canada, our ports handle 95 percent of U.S. trade. Two of the busiest ports of the nation are in California, at Long Beach and Oakland. Yet, just 1 or 2 percent of the 11 million shipping containers reaching our ports are inspected each year. The Federal Government has taken steps to beef up security along our northern and southern borders. And we are addressing aviation security. But just about everything that arrives by ship is waved through. This bill will strengthen law enforcement at our ports by establishing a federal port security task force and providing more funding for local efforts to boost port security. It is crucial that we increase cargo surveillance and inspections. And it is crucial that we provide our Customs agents and other port security forces with the equipment needed to detect chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, WMD. Osama bin Laden has stated that he considers it his ``religious duty'' to obtain such weapons. Earlier this month, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned, ``The willingness of terrorists to commit suicide to achieve their evil aims makes the nuclear terrorism threat far more likely than it was before September 11th.'' According to the Agency, there have been 175 cases of trafficking in nuclear material since 1993 and 201 cases of trafficking in medical and industrial radioactive material. Sadly, it is no longer beyond the pale to imagine that bin Laden and his associates might try to smuggle a nuclear device or so- called ``dirty bomb'' onto a cargo ship entering one of our busy seaports and then detonate it. I was prepared to offer an amendment to make it quite clear that references in the bill to chemical, biological, or other weapons of mass destruction include nuclear devices.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman for his clarification. It is absolutely vital that we upgrade our detection technology. Oakland's Howard Marine Terminal, for instance, is less than once-half mile from Jack London Square, a major tourist attraction. Ships that travel into and out of the Port of Oakland terminal pass within 400 yards of the Square. Immediately following the September 11th attacks, a 920-foot tanker carrying 33 million gallons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) was prevented from entering Boston Harbor. The tanker was kept 6 to 8 miles offshore while authorities figured out a way to safeguard the Harbor. It was not until November 4--with Coast Guard escorts--that the tanker was allowed into the harbor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the bipartisan education bill before the Senate today puts in place some strong and unprecedented reforms in elementary and secondary education to make schools more accountable and help students learn. For the public, this bill helps assure that our schools get results and that we know what those results are. California's public schools should be helped by this bill. To bolster student achievement, this bill includes several needed reforms, tying the receipt of Federal funds to getting results: The bill continues the current requirement that States must have academic standards for reading and math and adds a requirement that States establish standards for science. Schools must assure that students make continuous and substantial academic improvement and that students reach a proficient level within 12 years. To measure student achievement, States are required to test every student in grades 3-8 annually in reading and math based on State standards, by 2005-06. To ensure accountability, schools that fail for 2 consecutive years to make adequate yearly progress must be identified for improvement and also must identify specific steps to improve student performance. After 3 years, a failing school must offer public school choice and provide supplemental services. After 4 years, a school must take corrective actions such as replacing staff or implementing a new curriculum. After 5 years, a failing school must undertake major restructuring. The bill provides $500 million to help turn around low- performing schools. In order to improve teacher quality, this bill authorizes grants to States for teacher certification, recruitment, and retention services. States must assure that all teachers are qualified by 2006. The bill authorizes $1.25 billion in 2002 and up to $2.5 billion in 2007 for afterschool programs remedial education, tutoring and other services to improve student achievement. The bill requires public ``report cards,'' which will report on academic achievement, graduation rates and the names of failing schools. There are many other important initiatives and reforms. Another important feature of this bill is that it better directs Federal funds to disadvantaged students than does current law. Here are some examples: It requires that for the largest Federal education program, Title I, Aid to the Disadvantaged, the poor children count be updated every year instead of every 2 years under current law. This is very important to California, a State that has a higher than average poverty rate and high growth in the number of low-income children. The bill requires that more funds be funneled to States and districts using the targeted grant formula, which is focused on concentrations of poverty, areas such as Los Angeles, San Diego and other major cities. California is expected to receive a larger share of targeted grant funding than under current law because of its concentrated child poverty enrollment. The bill shifts bilingual and immigrant education funding from a competitive grant program to a formula grant program based on the number of children. California has a very high proportion of limited- English proficient and newly-immigrant children and should be greatly helped by this change. These are welcomed changes and should send the resources to where the needs are. The Federal Government provides only 7 percent of total education funding, but the strength of this bill is that it tries to leverage the Federal share to prod States and school districts to make schools responsible for real results. I believe the bill offers hope and resources to California's students, school officials, parents, and the public. California's schools are facing huge challenges. California has a projected enrollment rate triple that of the national rate. Unfortunately, many California students perform poorly compared to students in many other States. California has some of the largest classes in the Nation. California has overcrowded and substandard facilities and 30,000 uncredentialed teachers. I am sorry to say that 34 percent of California's schools that participate in Title I are identified for improvement compared to the national average of 19 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education. According to the January 2001 Education Weekly Quarterly Report, only 20 percent of California's fourth grade students are proficient in reading, ranking 36 out of 39 States. California ranks 32 out of 36 States for proficient eighth graders in reading, at 22 percent. American students are falling behind their counterparts in other countries. In literacy, 58 percent of U.S. high school graduates rank below an international literacy standard, dead last among the 29 countries that participated, according to Education Week, April 4, 2001. United States eighth graders scored significantly lower in mathematics and science than their peers in 14 of the 38 participating countries, according to the 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study. The percentage of teachers in the United States that feel they are ``very well prepared'' to teach science in the classroom is 27 percent. The international average is twice that, peaking at 56 percent, according to the 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study. United States students' knowledge of civic activities ranked 3rd out of the 28 countries that participated. However, those same students have been slipping in scores relating to math and science, according to Civic Know-How: US Students Rise to Test, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. The final bill includes several initiatives that I suggested: As to Title I funding, I have long argued that Title I should reflect the real numbers of poor students. This bill retains the requirement that the poor child count be updated every two years. Also, the bill better targets funds on concentrations of poor children, which should particularly help our urban school districts, like Los Angeles. As to master teachers, the bill allows funds under the teacher training title to create ``exemplary'' or ``master'' teachers who could mentor and guide less-experienced teachers, in an effort to keep new teachers in teaching. This is an outgrowth of my bill, S. 120. As to the Title I audit, the bill requires the Inspector General to conduct of audit to determine how Title I funds are used and the degree to which they are used for academic instruction. The Senate had accepted my amendment to better direct Title I funds to academic activities and away from things like playground supervisors. While the limitations of my amendment are not included in the final bill, the required audit will help us determine specifically whether Title I funds are being used to help students learn. As to small schools, the bill allows the use of Innovative Education funds to create smaller learning environments. While the final bill does not include my amendment that puts in place certain school-size requirements, as a condition for receiving funds, it does move that direction and recognize that smaller schools produce more learning. As to gun-free schools clarification, the bill includes several clarifications of the current Gun-Free Schools Act, the 1994 law which requires a 1-year expulsion for students who ``bring'' a gun to school. This bill includes students who ``possess'' a gun at school; it clarifies that the term ``school'' means the entire school campus, any setting under the control and supervision of the local school district; and it requires that all modifications of expulsions be put in writing. These are important clarifications to the law, the need for which was highlighted by an Inspector General's report on the implementation of that law. This bill makes some of the most profound revisions to Federal education policy since ESEA was first enacted in 1965. It is an important reform designed to help students learn, achieve and in fact, excel. The bill authorizes significant new funding. For example, Title I's authorized funding would grow from $13.5 billion in fiscal year 2002 to $25 billion in 2007. Now the challenge is to in fact provide those funds so that this bill will not be an empty promise.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Airport Security Personnel Protection Act. This legislation would expedite the naturalization process and authorize transitional employment for the many deserving airport security screeners who are in danger of losing their jobs as a result of a provision in the recently enacted Aviation Transaction Security Act. In providing this assistance to these worthy individuals, the bill also will provide relief for the airports in which they work and the many customers whom they serve. On November 19, 2001, President Bush signed the Aviation Transportation Security Act, P.L. 107-71, into law. The measure was passed with overwhelming support in both chambers. Among its many essential provisions was one, found in section 111(a) of the bill, that requires all airport security screeners to be United States citizens. Some expressed disagreement with the citizenship requirement while the bill was pending but voted for the bill, nonetheless, because of the many positive and essential provisions that the bill contained. Others supported the citizenship requirement as a necessary step to ensure the safety of our aviation system. Regardless of how Senators and House Members feel about the merits of the provision, we cannot help but be touched by one of its unfortunate consequences. Because of the contentious manner in which differing provisions in the House and Senate bills were resolved, we were unable to provide adequate transition provisions for the many well-qualified, hard-working, loyal, and deserving lawful permanent residents who are on the verge of attaining U.S. citizenship but who will not be able to complete that process before they lose their jobs. My legislation would resolve their situation in two ways: First, it would require the Attorney General to expedite the naturalization process for those applicants who were employed as airport security screeners at the time of enactment of the Aviation Transportation Security Act. Second, it would carve out a transition period during which qualified lawful permanent residents could continue their employment as security screeners while their naturalization applications are being adjudicated. The ``Airport Security Personnel Protection Act'' would provide for a smoother transition for qualified lawful permanent resident airport security screeners who are on the verge of completing the naturalization process. In so doing, it also would preserve both the integrity of the naturalization process and the strong requirements for security screeners that are contained in the Aviation Transportation Security Act. Section 4(c) of the legislation specifically precludes the weakening of standards for naturalization for these screeners. It makes it clear that the legislation merely requires the Attorney General to expedite the processing of the naturalization applications of qualified airport security screeners. Under current law, these standards include such requirements as five years of lawful permanent residence for most of those naturalizing, a demonstration of good moral character, an understanding of the English language, and an understanding of the history, principles, and form of government of the United States. The legislation also makes it clear that the Standards for continuing in employment during this transition period are to be the same, strong standards that are included in the recently enacted Aviation Transportation Security Act. Under this bill, in order to continue in employment during the transition period, an affected security screener would have to: be a lawful permanent resident alien; have been employed as a security screener on the date of enactment of the Act; meet the employment eligibility requirements under the Airport Security Screeners Act; have undergone and successfully completed an employment investigation (including a criminal history record check); have had a naturalization application pending on the date of enactment of the Act or, in the alternative, have to be within one year of being eligible to file an application for naturalization; and be approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation for hiring or continued employment. Just as importantly, in order to remain employed during this transition period, an alien would have to meet the new, enhanced requirements of security screeners that were enacted as part of the Aviation Transportation Security Act. These new, enhanced requirements provide that the alien would have to: have a satisfactory or better score on a Federal security screening personnel selection examination; demonstrate daily a fitness for duty without any impairment due to illegal drugs, sleep deprivation, medication, or alcohol; undergo an employment investigation, including a criminal history record check; not present a threat to national security; possess a high school diploma, a general equivalency diploma, or experience that the Under Secretary has determined to be sufficient for the individual to perform the duties of the position; possess the ability to efficiently and thoroughly manipulate and handle such baggage, containers, and other objects subject to security processing; be able to read, speak, and write English well enough to carry out written and oral instructions regarding the proper performance of screening duties; be able to read English language identification media, credentials, airline tickets, and labels on items normally encountered in the screening process; provide direction to and understand and answer questions from English- speaking individuals undergoing screening; and write incident reports and statements and log entries into security records in the English language; have satisfactorily completed all initial, recurrent, and appropriate specialized training required by the security program; among other requirements. This simple but important bill would help the many deserving lawful permanent residents who are well qualified, have been performing their jobs admirably, and whose lives are in danger of being disrupted. But it also would help the traveling public. It is estimated that at least 25 percent of the current 28,000 airport security screeners in the Nation's 419 commercial airports are noncitizens. I have heard from the mayor and airport director of the San Francisco International Airport. They came to me out of concern that, as a result of the new citizenship requirements under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the airport stands to lose 70 to 80 percent of its screening personnel. In Los Angeles, about 40 percent of the baggage screeners are noncitizens. Certainly, not all of these noncitizens will be able to meet the stringent requirements of this legislation. But to the extent that those who are well-qualified are permitted to continue their employment while their naturalization applications are being adjudicated, it will be a great help to the many airports in which they are employed. I urge my colleagues to move expeditiously to enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Airport Security Personnel Protection Act. This legislation would expedite the naturalization process and authorize transitional employment for the many deserving airport security screeners who are in danger of losing their jobs as a result of a provision in the recently enacted Aviation Transaction Security Act. In providing this assistance to these worthy individuals, the bill also will provide relief for the airports in which they work and the many customers whom they serve. On November 19, 2001, President Bush signed the Aviation Transportation Security Act, P.L. 107-71, into law. The measure was passed with overwhelming support in both chambers. Among its many essential provisions was one, found in section 111(a) of the bill, that requires all airport security screeners to be United States citizens. Some expressed disagreement with the citizenship requirement while the bill was pending but voted for the bill, nonetheless, because of the many positive and essential provisions that the bill contained. Others supported the citizenship requirement as a necessary step to ensure the safety of our aviation system. Regardless of how Senators and House Members feel about the merits of the provision, we cannot help but be touched by one of its unfortunate consequences. Because of the contentious manner in which differing provisions in the House and Senate bills were resolved, we were unable to provide adequate transition provisions for the many well-qualified, hard-working, loyal, and deserving lawful permanent residents who are on the verge of attaining U.S. citizenship but who will not be able to complete that process before they lose their jobs. My legislation would resolve their situation in two ways: First, it would require the Attorney General to expedite the naturalization process for those applicants who were employed as airport security screeners at the time of enactment of the Aviation Transportation Security Act. Second, it would carve out a transition period during which qualified lawful permanent residents could continue their employment as security screeners while their naturalization applications are being adjudicated. The ``Airport Security Personnel Protection Act'' would provide for a smoother transition for qualified lawful permanent resident airport security screeners who are on the verge of completing the naturalization process. In so doing, it also would preserve both the integrity of the naturalization process and the strong requirements for security screeners that are contained in the Aviation Transportation Security Act. Section 4(c) of the legislation specifically precludes the weakening of standards for naturalization for these screeners. It makes it clear that the legislation merely requires the Attorney General to expedite the processing of the naturalization applications of qualified airport security screeners. Under current law, these standards include such requirements as five years of lawful permanent residence for most of those naturalizing, a demonstration of good moral character, an understanding of the English language, and an understanding of the history, principles, and form of government of the United States. The legislation also makes it clear that the Standards for continuing in employment during this transition period are to be the same, strong standards that are included in the recently enacted Aviation Transportation Security Act. Under this bill, in order to continue in employment during the transition period, an affected security screener would have to: be a lawful permanent resident alien; have been employed as a security screener on the date of enactment of the Act; meet the employment eligibility requirements under the Airport Security Screeners Act; have undergone and successfully completed an employment investigation (including a criminal history record check); have had a naturalization application pending on the date of enactment of the Act or, in the alternative, have to be within one year of being eligible to file an application for naturalization; and be approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation for hiring or continued employment. Just as importantly, in order to remain employed during this transition period, an alien would have to meet the new, enhanced requirements of security screeners that were enacted as part of the Aviation Transportation Security Act. These new, enhanced requirements provide that the alien would have to: have a satisfactory or better score on a Federal security screening personnel selection examination; demonstrate daily a fitness for duty without any impairment due to illegal drugs, sleep deprivation, medication, or alcohol; undergo an employment investigation, including a criminal history record check; not present a threat to national security; possess a high school diploma, a general equivalency diploma, or experience that the Under Secretary has determined to be sufficient for the individual to perform the duties of the position; possess the ability to efficiently and thoroughly manipulate and handle such baggage, containers, and other objects subject to security processing; be able to read, speak, and write English well enough to carry out written and oral instructions regarding the proper performance of screening duties; be able to read English language identification media, credentials, airline tickets, and labels on items normally encountered in the screening process; provide direction to and understand and answer questions from English- speaking individuals undergoing screening; and write incident reports and statements and log entries into security records in the English language; have satisfactorily completed all initial, recurrent, and appropriate specialized training required by the security program; among other requirements. This simple but important bill would help the many deserving lawful permanent residents who are well qualified, have been performing their jobs admirably, and whose lives are in danger of being disrupted. But it also would help the traveling public. It is estimated that at least 25 percent of the current 28,000 airport security screeners in the Nation's 419 commercial airports are noncitizens. I have heard from the mayor and airport director of the San Francisco International Airport. They came to me out of concern that, as a result of the new citizenship requirements under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the airport stands to lose 70 to 80 percent of its screening personnel. In Los Angeles, about 40 percent of the baggage screeners are noncitizens. Certainly, not all of these noncitizens will be able to meet the stringent requirements of this legislation. But to the extent that those who are well-qualified are permitted to continue their employment while their naturalization applications are being adjudicated, it will be a great help to the many airports in which they are employed. I urge my colleagues to move expeditiously to enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee for working with me to find a way that the California dairy industry can be held harmless by the dairy provisions in the farm bill. California is the largest dairy State in the Nation. Last year, California dairy farmers produced 32.2 billion pounds of milk--over 19 percent of the Nation's supply. With over 2,100 dairy farms in the State, California leads the Nation in total number of milk cows at approximately 1.5 million. I spoke on the floor last week about how devastating the original farm bill would have been to the California dairy industry. And I have said California cannot be left out of any dairy equation. The original bill would have cost California dairy farmers $1.5 billion over 9 years and driven up prices for consumers by $1.5 billion over 9 years. I thank the Chairman for recognizing how much better California fares under this substitute versus the original proposal. I am delighted that he has agreed to see to it that California can be held harmless. Under the compromise in this bill, and according to an analysis by the University of Missouri's Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, California dairymen will receive a net benefit $143.1 million in payments until the end of fiscal year 2005. This means California dairy farmers will receive $78.1 million in fiscal year 2002, $70.7 million in fiscal year 2003, and $19.4 million in fiscal year 2004. If these numbers are not accurate projections for California, it is my understanding that the dairy provisions will be worked out in conference so that California is ultimately not adversely impacted by the dairy provisions in this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today along with my colleagues Senator Hagel and Senator Boxer to submit a concurrent resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that the Congress and the President should support efforts to reunite Americans of Korean ancestry with their families in North Korea. Following a historic summit in June, 2000 in Pyongyang, North Korea, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and North Korean leader Kim Jon II agreed to hold reunions of South Korean and North Korean families separated at the 38th parallel since the start of the Korean war. Since then, three reunions have taken place and more than 3,400 citizens of North and South Korea have been reunited after more than 50 years. I applaud these reunions and I believe they are an important step towards improving relations between North and South Korea and promoting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Unfortunately, more than 500,000 Americans of Korean ancestry, many of whom reside in my home state of California, who likewise have been separated from loved ones in North Korea for half a century have not been able to participate. Time is of the essence. Family members in North Korea and the United States are entering the twilight of their lives. Many have died. Many simply do not know what has happened to their loved ones. We now have an opportunity to lend our support to efforts to reunite families who have spent far too long suffering from separation and uncertainty. The resolution is simple. It states that it is the sense of Congress that the Congress and the President should support efforts to reunite people of the United States of Korean ancestry with their families in North Korea and that those efforts should be made in a timely manner. The holiday season is a time for family members to come together, share their love and happiness, and look forward to the New Year. During this time, let us make a commitment to help Americans of Korean descent so that they too will soon be able to share in that holiday spirit with their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and grandmothers and grandfathers in North Korea. I urge my colleagues to support the Resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from California and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to address the dangerous gap that exists in the counterterrorism intelligence network in this country. Information pertaining to terrorist threats is not currently collected in a centralized place for review, analysis, and dissemination. Statewide counter terrorist data is therefore not accessible to every law enforcement agency that may need it. The collection, analysis, and accessibility of this information to law enforcement are critically important to protect the health and safety of citizens. In late September, the California Governor and Attorney General signed a memorandum of understanding that established The California Anti Terrorism Information Center (CATIC) to address this critical problem. Every day, State and local law enforcement learn information that may be useful to Federal intelligence authorities or that may actually prevent terrorist events from taking place. Despite this obvious point, there is currently no reliable and secure system to ensure that this information flows back and forth among the right people in a rapid and organized manner. The California Anti-Terrorism Information Center is designed to solve this problem by developing a sophisticated data system that includes trained intelligence specialist, extensive technology infrastructure, and strong safeguards to protect constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. This new system represents a crucial advance in counter-terrorism intelligence sharing and some federal agencies have already committed analysts to CATIC. Dozens of State and local personnel will also be detailed to the various investigative and analytic units of CATIC. I believe Federal resources are also a necessary component of this project if it is to achieve maximum effectiveness.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I said that California families under the Senate bill will pay 40 cents more per gallon of milk. That is according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. That represents a net cost to the industry of $1.5 billion over the 9 years of this bill. Do we really want to make it more expensive for parents to provide calcium to their children? Do we want to deprive the elderly of nutrition that strengthens bones, fights cancers, stops osteoporosis? Do we want to make families cross milk off their grocery list because it costs too much? I don't think so. For Californians, the legislation is a double-edged sword. Not only will a mother in Los Angeles be paying more every week at the grocery store, but a father who runs a dairy farm in Modesto will see his income slashed, if this bill becomes law. For one co-op, this represents a loss of $71,000 per dairy farm. The payment formula may be complicated and crafty, but the winners and losers are clear. California is targeted by this bill to be a loser. Like other goods, a higher price established for fluid milk by law-- not the market--will cause families to buy less, as I said, and cause suppliers to get an improper price signal to produce more. If there is too much drinking milk in the marketplace, it spills over to compete against milk used to produce cheese, butter, milk powder, and other dairy products. Prices for milk are based on how the milk is used, which is referred to as ``ultimate utilization.'' Since over 80 percent of the milk in California is used to produce these dairy products, any excess milk will drive down the prices received by California dairy producers. Other States with small dairies can take advantage of government subsidies no matter what the milk goes for. But States such as California are excluded under their proposal because dairy farms have large herds. The average size of the 2,100 herds in California is 656 cows. Again, this is an attempt to take money from California to give it to other States. Dairy producers estimate they are going to lose $1.5 billion over the next 9 years if the provisions in the Senate farm bill are enacted into law. Let me read a couple of letters from California's dairyland. Jim Tillison, Chief Operating Officer of The Alliance of Western Milk Producers, writes that the dairy program in the Farm Bill ``is bad for California's consumers and it is bad for California's dairy farm families.'' He estimates, ``the net loss of revenue from manufactured milk will decrease California dairy farm family income by $1.5 billion over the next 9 years.'' The Alliance of Western Milk Producers is a trade association that represents California dairy cooperatives. Together, Alliance member cooperatives market approximately 50 percent of the milk produced in California both as raw milk and as processed dairy products. Rachel Kaldor, Executive Director of the Dairy Institute of California, a state trade association representing the manufacturers of over 70 percent of the fluid, frozen, and cultured dairy products in California, writes, ``any legislation which creates federal price floors, production limits and income redistribution--national pooling-- is bad news for California.'' In another letter, Gary Korsmeier, Chief Executive Officer of California Dairies Incorporated reports, ``the milk prices for California farm milk used in cheese, butter, nonfat milk powder and other dairy products, would drop by $2.9 billion dollars.'' Korsmeier predicts the average dairy farmer in the cooperative would lose $71,000 per year. California Dairies Incorporated is a member of the Alliance of Western Milk Producers. Formed from the merger last year of three California dairy cooperatives, California Dairies' 700 members account for about 40 percent of California's milk production. I could go on and on. I can talk about lower milk consumption, increased milk production, and dramatically increased government expenditures on the dairy program. I can talk about another layer of bureaucracy and exacerbation of regional disparities. I can talk about providing another chance to pit big producers against small producers and reduction in the percentage of producer income that is derived from the market. I can talk about contradicting congressional intent for the current program, setting up regional supply management boards, and increases in assessments on dairy producers. The dairy program is a bad part of this farm bill. I would like to read into the Record the agricultural groups that oppose the dairy provisions currently in this bill: California Farm Bureau Federation, Alliance of Western Milk Producers, Western United Dairymen, California Dairies Incorporated, Milk Producers Council of California, Montana Dairy Association, Dairy Producers of New Mexico, Idaho Dairymen's Association, Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, Texas Association of Dairymen, Utah Dairymen's Association, and the Washington State Dairy Federation. It is not only California, it is a number of Western States that would be seriously impacted by the dairy provisions of this bill. Let me say in conclusion that a national dairy policy that strikes at the heart of California's dairy industry and other Western State dairy farmers is not an option. I cannot support a farm bill that harms California. I hope the negotiations going on to try to come up with another formula to meet this concern are successful. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I appreciate the unanimous consent agreement to recognize the Senator from North Dakota. But I also notice that he is not present at this time. I ask that the unanimous consent agreement be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, be recognized immediately upon the conclusion of my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the farm bill as it is presented to this Senate, and specifically the dairy part of that bill. I rise with the knowledge that some negotiations are going on to see if that particular dairy program cannot be improved, at least improved from the position of California. The present bill, as drafted, before this body, is one, frankly, I cannot support. I cannot support it largely because of the dairy provisions. I thought it might be helpful if I related my experiences. The problem is that some States have many small farms, 60 to 80 cows, and other States have larger farms. That is where the subsidies intermesh to really create a very difficult playing field for California. Essentially the provisions in the agriculture bill that is on the floor now would force consumers across the United States to pay $1.8 billion more for milk each year. It would drive down essential income to dairy farmers who produce the milk contained in most of our Nation's dairy products. California is the largest dairy State in the Nation. Last year, dairy farmers produced 32.2 billion pounds of milk. Over 19 percent plus of the Nation's supply comes from California. The industry is a $4.3 billion industry in the State, and dairy is the largest part--most people do not know that--of what is a $30 billion agricultural industry. We have 2,000 dairy farms in the State--2,100 to be exact. We lead the Nation in the total number of milk cows at 1.5 million. I often joke I wish they could vote. The California industry produces 122,000 jobs and contributes $17.5 billion overall in the economy each year. These are full-time, year-round jobs in agricultural counties that make up the heart of the great California central valley. Dairies provide jobs for farmers who grow and ship feed, for farmhands who milk the cows, for workers in the processing plants who make our famous California cheeses, and for packers, marketers, and many others. In fact, in the great San Joachin Valley, one in every five jobs is dependent on the dairy industry. If California were a separate nation-- I think most people do not know this--it would rank eighth in the world in milk production, fifth in the world in cheese production, and ninth in the world in butter production. I want to make it clear that we are talking about California more than any other State when you talk dairy. So it is simply not possible to leave California out of any dairy equation. I am aware that the dairy industry, particularly in the Northeast, needs government help. I want to make it clear that I can't support that help if it greatly disadvantages the dairy farmers in California. I think the California Secretary of Agriculture put it best. I would like to quote from a letter dated December 3: Consumers will see higher prices for fluid milk. In the Senate bill, it is 40 cents more a gallon for milk. State law and economics dictate that California's dairy prices must bear a reasonable relationship to milk prices in neighboring regions. California law, like it or not, ties us into any pooling agreement that might be made. As fluid milk prices in surrounding states rise, California fluid milk prices would be increased in a corresponding manner. Unfortunately, the higher milk prices will force some consumers to switch to less expensive--and less nutritious-- non-dairy alternatives. Dairy processors would be negatively impacted by this loss of fluid milk sales. At the same time, California's dairy farmers will also lose under the Senate plan. Increases in fluid milk prices will undoubtedly lead to increased milk production. Once an area covers its needs for fluid milk, the additional milk goes for manufactured product such as cheese, milk powder, and butter. California is the leading producer of both milk powder and butter. California is the second largest producer of cheese, and in fact only 19 percent of California's milk production goes for fluid milk. By simultaneously stimulating production while dampening demand, the Senate plan strikes at the heart of California's dairy economy by severely depressing prices for manufactured dairy products. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to authorize the CALFED Bay Delta Program. I am pleased that Senator Boxer has agreed to co-sponsor this bill with me. The bill that I am introducing today is also supported by Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He has committed to helping move this bill through his committee and hopefully through the Senate. The most important thing about this new bill is that it fully authorizes the CALFED Record of Decision and all the projects associated with it with Federal costs of less than $10 million. Any projects of more than $10 million that are ready to be constructed will be reported to the authorizing committees in a package every 2 years. This bill authorizes $2.4 billion to cover the one-third Federal share of the CALFED program. The State and water users will each be responsible for the other two-thirds. California's population is 35 million today and could reach 50 million within the next 20 years. There simply is not enough water in the system to meet the future demand. CALFED is the best hope we have to increase our water supply, preserve the environment and protect against a water emergency. I don't believe we can wait any longer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to authorize the CALFED Bay Delta Program. I am pleased that Senator Boxer has agreed to co-sponsor this bill with me. The bill that I am introducing today is also supported by Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He has committed to helping move this bill through his committee and hopefully through the Senate. The most important thing about this new bill is that it fully authorizes the CALFED Record of Decision and all the projects associated with it with Federal costs of less than $10 million. Any projects of more than $10 million that are ready to be constructed will be reported to the authorizing committees in a package every 2 years. This bill authorizes $2.4 billion to cover the one-third Federal share of the CALFED program. The State and water users will each be responsible for the other two-thirds. California's population is 35 million today and could reach 50 million within the next 20 years. There simply is not enough water in the system to meet the future demand. CALFED is the best hope we have to increase our water supply, preserve the environment and protect against a water emergency. I don't believe we can wait any longer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Miller, Corzine, Durbin, Clinton, and I are introducing legislation to make the cloning of a human being a crime. Unlike other bills, our bill would not criminalize cloning that could provide treatments for diseases, known as therapeutic cloning. On November 25, scientists at Advanced Cell Technology, a Massachusetts biotechnology firm, announced that they had created the first human embryos ever produced by cloning. I believe that this announcement raises serious concerns and we are proposing a bill to address this development. The bill we introduce today would: 1. permanently ban human reproductive cloning, the cloning of a human being; and 2. allow therapeutic cloning, that is, allow the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning technologies to create stem cells for treating diseases. I support a ban on the cloning of human beings because I believe it is scientifically unsafe, morally unacceptable, and ethically flawed. Our bill would allow cloning for therapeutic or treatment purposes. It would not allow cloning for reproductive purposes, for creating a human being. Specifically, it prohibits the implantation of the product of nuclear transplantation into a uterus. Nuclear transplantation is also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. There is broad agreement in the public, in the Congress, in the scientific community, in the medical community, and in the religious community that the cloning of a human being should be prohibited. This bill does just that. The view that we should not clone human beings is held by many groups and authorities, including the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, NBAC, which concluded that it is unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer technology. The Commission said, At this time, it is morally unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector, whether in a research or clinical setting, to attempt to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning. The difference between our bill and several others including H.R. 2505, the bill passed by the House of Representatives is whether the bills protect valuable medical research that some day could provide cures for many dreaded diseases, diseases like cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and heart disease; and conditions like spinal cord injury, liver damage, arthritis, and burns. This research may some day develop replacement cells and tissues to restore bodily function and treat diseases. Therapeutic cloning is particularly promising because the rejection of implanted tissues is less likely since the tissues would exactly match those of the person who donated the somatic cell nucleus. To criminally prohibit this kind of research would be a big setback for science. Here's what some of the experts say about the promise of therapeutic cloning: The Association of American Medical Colleges: Therapeutic cloning technology could provide an invaluable approach to studying how cells become specialized, which in turn could provide new understanding of the mechanisms that lead to the development of the abnormal cells responsible for cancers and certain birth defects. Improved understanding of cell specialization may also provide answers to how cells age or are regulated--leading to new insights into the treatment of cure of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, or other incapacitating degenerative diseases of the brain and spinal cord. The technology might also help us understand how to activate certain genes to permit the creation of customized cells for transplantation or grafting. Such cells would be genetically identical to the cells of the donor and could therefore be transplanted into that donor without fear of immune rejection, the major biological barrier to organ and tissue transplantation at this time. The Society for Women's Health Research wrote me on November 28: Barring all therapeutic cloning would more likely drive research underground and guarantee that only the most unscrupulous would advance these technologies. The National Health Council said: Making reproductive human cloning unlawful must be done in a way that does not deprive those suffering from debilitating chronic diseases, potential relief and possible cures. The Alliance for Aging Research wrote on November 28, Scientists who utilized therapeutic cloning techniques in the conduct of important scientific research would be labeled as criminals. The consequence would be that important research, research intended to save lives and reduce suffering of tens of millions Americans, would be stopped in its tracks. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote on November 1, 2001: Therapeutic cloning may hold the key for repairing or creating new tissues or organs that could alleviate myriad medical conditions: diabetes, heart disease, spinal cord injury and Parkinson's, to name just a few. This technology is key to the ability to create ``customized tissues'' using a patient's own DNA to avoid rejection problems, and at this time, appears promising. Other bills would make it a crime to clone cells that are used for therapeutic purposes that some day will save lives and suffering. I cannot support that approach, to criminalize legitimate medical research that could some day treat diseases and save human lives. That would be very short-sighted. In summary, I believe that the cloning of human beings is wrong and should be outlawed. I believe that therapeutic cloning holds great medical promise and should not be prohibited. This bill will make it a crime to create human beings, but protect important scientific research that can save human lives and relieve human suffering. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Miller, Corzine, Durbin, Clinton, and I are introducing legislation to make the cloning of a human being a crime. Unlike other bills, our bill would not criminalize cloning that could provide treatments for diseases, known as therapeutic cloning. On November 25, scientists at Advanced Cell Technology, a Massachusetts biotechnology firm, announced that they had created the first human embryos ever produced by cloning. I believe that this announcement raises serious concerns and we are proposing a bill to address this development. The bill we introduce today would: 1. permanently ban human reproductive cloning, the cloning of a human being; and 2. allow therapeutic cloning, that is, allow the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning technologies to create stem cells for treating diseases. I support a ban on the cloning of human beings because I believe it is scientifically unsafe, morally unacceptable, and ethically flawed. Our bill would allow cloning for therapeutic or treatment purposes. It would not allow cloning for reproductive purposes, for creating a human being. Specifically, it prohibits the implantation of the product of nuclear transplantation into a uterus. Nuclear transplantation is also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. There is broad agreement in the public, in the Congress, in the scientific community, in the medical community, and in the religious community that the cloning of a human being should be prohibited. This bill does just that. The view that we should not clone human beings is held by many groups and authorities, including the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, NBAC, which concluded that it is unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer technology. The Commission said, At this time, it is morally unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector, whether in a research or clinical setting, to attempt to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning. The difference between our bill and several others including H.R. 2505, the bill passed by the House of Representatives is whether the bills protect valuable medical research that some day could provide cures for many dreaded diseases, diseases like cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and heart disease; and conditions like spinal cord injury, liver damage, arthritis, and burns. This research may some day develop replacement cells and tissues to restore bodily function and treat diseases. Therapeutic cloning is particularly promising because the rejection of implanted tissues is less likely since the tissues would exactly match those of the person who donated the somatic cell nucleus. To criminally prohibit this kind of research would be a big setback for science. Here's what some of the experts say about the promise of therapeutic cloning: The Association of American Medical Colleges: Therapeutic cloning technology could provide an invaluable approach to studying how cells become specialized, which in turn could provide new understanding of the mechanisms that lead to the development of the abnormal cells responsible for cancers and certain birth defects. Improved understanding of cell specialization may also provide answers to how cells age or are regulated--leading to new insights into the treatment of cure of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, or other incapacitating degenerative diseases of the brain and spinal cord. The technology might also help us understand how to activate certain genes to permit the creation of customized cells for transplantation or grafting. Such cells would be genetically identical to the cells of the donor and could therefore be transplanted into that donor without fear of immune rejection, the major biological barrier to organ and tissue transplantation at this time. The Society for Women's Health Research wrote me on November 28: Barring all therapeutic cloning would more likely drive research underground and guarantee that only the most unscrupulous would advance these technologies. The National Health Council said: Making reproductive human cloning unlawful must be done in a way that does not deprive those suffering from debilitating chronic diseases, potential relief and possible cures. The Alliance for Aging Research wrote on November 28, Scientists who utilized therapeutic cloning techniques in the conduct of important scientific research would be labeled as criminals. The consequence would be that important research, research intended to save lives and reduce suffering of tens of millions Americans, would be stopped in its tracks. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote on November 1, 2001: Therapeutic cloning may hold the key for repairing or creating new tissues or organs that could alleviate myriad medical conditions: diabetes, heart disease, spinal cord injury and Parkinson's, to name just a few. This technology is key to the ability to create ``customized tissues'' using a patient's own DNA to avoid rejection problems, and at this time, appears promising. Other bills would make it a crime to clone cells that are used for therapeutic purposes that some day will save lives and suffering. I cannot support that approach, to criminalize legitimate medical research that could some day treat diseases and save human lives. That would be very short-sighted. In summary, I believe that the cloning of human beings is wrong and should be outlawed. I believe that therapeutic cloning holds great medical promise and should not be prohibited. This bill will make it a crime to create human beings, but protect important scientific research that can save human lives and relieve human suffering. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.