Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Security and Fair Enforcement in Arms Trafficking Act of 2001, cosponsored by Senators Leahy and Akaka. Small arms and light weapons, such as assault rifles, machine guns, grenades, and portable launchers of antiaircraft missile systems, are the weapons of choice for terrorists and their friends, and I fully believe that U.S. leadership is needed to stem the global torrent of illicit arms. All too often these arms fall into the hands of terrorists, drug cartels, and violent rebellions. Curbing the proliferation of these weapons must be a vital component of our efforts to combat international terrorism. The rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, in fact, is due in no small part to the ready availability of these weapons in that war torn country, and Afghanistan clearly demonstrates how a country can become a threat to regional and global security if it is flooded with small arms and light weapons. The Taliban and the al Qaeda network were able to gather more than 10 million small arms and light weapons from a variety of sources over the past decade, including AK-47s, hand grenades, and Stinger missiles. Today the United States and its allies are faced with these very weapons as we move forward with Operation Enduring Freedom. The global networks of terrorism are clearly linked to the networks of the illicit arms trade and to the states that harbor terrorists, and terrorists around the globe also utilize the intertwined global networks of the illegal arms trade and the drug trade to generate financial resources for their destructive and threatening activities. As I have previously discussed on the floor, the global proliferation of small arms and light weapons is a staggering problem. An estimated 500 million illicit small arms and light weapons are in circulation around the globe. In the past decade, an estimated 4 million people have been killed in civil war and bloody fighting. Nine out of ten of these deaths are attributed to small arms and light weapons. The sheer volume of available weaponry has been a major factor in the devastation witnessed in recent conflicts in Angola, Cambodia, Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Kosovo, among others, as well as the violence endemic to narco-trafficking. The increased access by terrorists, guerrilla groups, criminals, and others to small arms and light weapons poses a real threat to U.S. forces overseas. For the United States, as we now engage in the war on terrorism, this issue is a very real force protection issue. The conflicts fueled by small arms and light weapons undermine regional stability and endanger the spread of democracy and free markets around the world. Clearly this is a huge problem, with profound implications for U.S. security interests. I strongly believe that the U.S. Government must take the lead in the international community in addressing this issue. It is in the United States national interest to promote responsibility and restraint in the transfer of small arms and light weapons; to combat irresponsible practices in such transfers, to ensure that nations engaged in substandard practices are held accountable; to encourage other members of the international community to meet, as minimum standards U.S. law and practices; take strong action to negotiate and support making the trafficking of small arms traceable; bolster rules governing arms brokers; and eliminate the secrecy that permits millions of these weapons to circulate illicitly around the globe, fueling crime and war. As a matter of fact, as a major supplier country in the legal arms trade, the United States has a special obligation to promote responsible practices in the transfer of these weapons. That is what the Security and Fair Enforcement in Arms Trafficking Act of 2001 aims to do. It: Affirms U.S. policy to maintain the highest standards for the management and transfer of small arms and light weapons exports, and that it is U.S. policy to refrain from exports that could be used in internal repression, human rights abuses and international aggression; enforces the ban in international commercial transfers of military-style assault weapons and, improves end-use monitoring of U.S. arms transfers; urges the administration to enter into negotiations with the European Union and NATO member states, as well as other members of the international community to bring our allies into compliance with U.S. law and standards for the export and transfer of military-style assault weapons as well as on such critical issues as marking and tracing of small arms and light weapons, rules governing the conduct of arms brokers, and the enforcement of arms embargoes; calls on the administration to establish a U.S.-EU Coordinating Group on Small Arms, and to work to and implement and advance the Program of Action of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects; improves the transparency of U.S. transfers in small arms and light weapons, and requires the establishment of a registry of all U.S. firearm exports; and, encourages all states that have not done so to ratify the OAS convention on small arms and light weapons. And let me be clear: This legislation does not interfere with legitimate and responsible transfers of small arms or the lawful ownership and use of guns in the United States. The United States needs to push hard to improve the international standards and the application of legally binding agreements to stem the illicit trade in these weapons. Fighting the proliferation of small arms is critical to our efforts to combat terrorism, narco-trafficking, international organized crime, regional and local war. I believe that combating the proliferation of small arms and light weapons is a critical element of the fight against terrorism, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and with the administration to pass the Security and Fair Enforcement in Arms Trafficking Act of 2001.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am concerned that the $2.50 user fee in this bill is not sufficient to provide all of the air marshals we need. The $2.50 user fee would only provide between $1.3 billion and $1.7 billion annually, in my opinion, enough to fund Federal security screeners at our airports, but not enough to provide additional air marshals. Today, I intended to offer an amendment to give the Secretary of Transportation discretion to raise this fee to $5, which would raise over $3 billion annually to devote to aviation safety. To ensure that the bill on the Floor passes quickly and we provide increased aviation security as soon as possible, I have decided not to proceed with my amendment. I still believe, however, that people are willing to pay more to feel safe on airplanes and the more air marshals we have, the better. I want to thank the Members of the Commerce Committee for their hard work on this bill, and especially the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator Hollings and Senator McCain.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the consensus terrorism bill now on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The people of the United States awoke on September 12 to a whole new world, one in which we can no longer feel safe within our borders. We awoke to a world in which our very way of life is under attack, and we have since resolved to fight back with every tool at our disposal. This is an unprecedented state of affairs, and it demands unprecedented action. We must seek out and defeat individuals and groups who would build upon the September 11 attacks with more of their own. We simply must give law enforcement officials the tools they need to track, to hunt down, and to capture terrorists, both in this country, and around the world as well. And that is what this bill would do. Let me just describe some of the key provisions of this legislation, and how those provisions will make an impact, even in the current investigation into the September 11 attacks. First, this bill makes it easier to collect foreign intelligence information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. Under current law, authorities can proceed with surveillance under FISA only if the primary purpose of the investigation is to collect foreign intelligence. But in today's world things are not so simple. In many cases, surveillance will have two key goals--the gathering of foreign intelligence, and the gathering of evidence for a criminal prosecution. Determining which purpose is the ``primary'' purpose of the investigation can be difficult, and will only become more so as we coordinate our intelligence and law enforcement efforts in the war against terror. Rather than forcing law enforcement to decide which purpose is primary--law enforcement or foreign intelligence gathering, this bill strikes a new balance. It will now require that a ``significant'' purpose of the investigation must be foreign intelligence gathering to proceed with surveillance under FISA. The effect of this provision will be to make it easier for law enforcement to obtain a FISA search or surveillance warrant for those cases where the subject of the surveillance is both a potential source of valuable intelligence and the potential target of a criminal prosecution. Many of the individuals involved in supporting the September 11 attacks may well fall into both of these categories. This language is a negotiated compromise between those who wished the law to stay the same, and those who wished to virtually eliminate the foreign intelligence standard entirely. The administration originally proposed changing ``primary purpose'' to ``a purpose,'' but when I questioned Attorney General Ashcroft at our Judiciary Committee hearing, he agreed that ``significant purpose'' would represent a good compromise. Second, this legislation will provide multi-point authority, or so- called ``roving wiretap authority'' in foreign intelligence investigations. This provision is designed to defeat attempts to evade law enforcement by simply switching cell phones or moving locations. Under current law, law enforcement must get a wiretap order for each individuals phone line. Criminals and terrorists know this, so they often manage to defeat surveillance by simply moving locations or exchanging countless disposable or even stolen cell phones. This legislation will now allow the surveillance to follow the person, wherever or however that person is communicating. So, no longer will duplicative wiretap orders be necessary simply to listen to the same, single target of an investigation. This is a powerful change to the law that does not put innocent conversations in danger, but stops the evasion of surveillance now possible under the law. Third, this legislation allows nationwide service of so-called ``pen register'' and ``trap and trace'' orders. Those orders allow law enforcement to track incoming and outgoing phone calls, and now Internet addressing, so that the authorities can make connections between various criminals or terrorists. The problem with current law is that it has not kept up with technology. Modern communications travel through many jurisdictions before reaching their final destinations, and current law requires court orders from every jurisdiction through which the communication travels. Under this new legislation, only one court order will be necessary, eliminating the time-consuming and burdensome requirements now placed on law enforcement simply because technology has changed the way communications travel from one place to the other. Law enforcement resources should be spent in the field, not filing unnecessarily burdensome motions in courtroom after courtroom. I should also mention one important point about this provision. The standard necessary to get a court-ordered pen register or trap and trace is lower than the standard necessary to get a wiretap, so it was very important to make sure that this legislation makes it clear that these orders do not allow law enforcement to eavesdrop on or read the content of communication. Only the origin and destination of the messages will be intercepted. This legislation also authorizes the seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to a probable cause warrant, which is an easier standard for law enforcement to meet than the standard required for a wiretap. Current law treats a voice-mail like an ongoing oral communication, and requires law enforcement to obtain a wiretap order to seize and listen to those saved messages. E-mails, however, receive no similar protection. In my opinion, if law enforcement can access e-mail communications with probable cause, the same should be the case with voice-mails. And so it will be once this legislation passes. This legislation will also now allow for limited sharing of grand jury and other criminal investigation information with the intelligence community, to assist in the prevention of terrorist acts and the apprehension of the terrorists themselves. Under current law, law enforcement officials involved in a grand jury investigation cannot share information gathered in the grand jury with the intelligence community, even if that information would prevent a future terrorist act. Under this legislation, grand jury and other criminal investigative information can be shared if one, the information can is foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information, as defined by statute; two, the information is given to an official with a need to know in the performance of his or her official duties; and three, limitations on public or other unauthorized disclosure would remain in force. This balance makes sense, I believe strongly that grand jury information should not be leaked to the public or disclosed haphazardly to anyone. But at the same time, it makes perfect sense to allow our own law enforcement officials to talk to each other about ongoing investigations, and to coordinate their efforts to capture terrorists wherever they may be. This legislation also contains a heavily negotiated provision regarding the detention of aliens suspected of links to terrorism without charging them. Agreement was reached to one, limit to 7 days the length of time an alien may be held before being charged with criminal or immigration violations, two, allow the Attorney General to delegate the certification power only to the INS Commissioner, and three, specify that the merits of the certification is subject to judicial review. This legislation also contains several key provisions from a bill I introduced last month with the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Graham. For instance, the bill: Clarifies the role of the CIA director as the coordinator of strategies and priorities for how the government uses its limited surveillance resources; requires that law enforcement officers who discover foreign intelligence information in the course of a criminal investigation share that information with the intelligence community; includes ``international terrorist activities'' in the definition of ``foreign intelligence'' to clarify the authorities of the CIA; includes a sense of Congress that the CIA should make efforts to recruit informants in the fight against terrorism, even if some of those informants may, as is likely the case, not be ideal citizens; requires a report from the CIA on the feasibility of establishing a virtual translation center for use by the intelligence community, so that translators around the country can assist in investigations taking place far, far away. For instance, this center would allow a translator living in Los Angeles to assist law enforcement in New York without even leaving California; and finally, agreement was reached to require the Attorney General, in consultation with the CIA Director, to provide training to federal, state and local government officials to identify foreign intelligence information obtained in the course of their duties. In addition, this bill also: Triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service, and INS inspectors at the northern border; authorizes $50 million to improve INS and Customs technology for monitoring the northern border and to add equipment on the border; lifts the statute of limitations on terrorist acts as defined by law where those crimes resulted in, or created a risk of, death or serious bodily injury. These crimes include bio-terrorism, attacks against airports or airplanes, arson or bombings of U.S. facilities, and other terrorist acts; adds this same list of terrorist crimes certain as predicates for RICO and money laundering; creates two new bio-terrorism crimes, the first prohibits certain restricted persons, including nonresident aliens from countries that support terrorism, from possessing a listed biological agent or toxin; and the second prohibits any person from possessing a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a peaceful purpose. The Attorney General and the President of the United States have asked this Congress to give them legislation that will assist in the war against terrorism, and I am one who believes very strongly that we should do so, and we should do so quickly. This bill is a product of intense negotiations, and I believe that a good balance has been struck here. Compromises have been reached on the most controversial provisions, roving wiretap authority; trap and trace of computer routing information; sharing of grand jury information; and mandatory detention of aliens suspected of terrorism. Although I no longer believe it to be necessary now that these compromises have been reached, I would support a five-year sunset on the provisions I just mentioned as a valuable check on the potential abuse of the new powers granted in the bill. But a two-year sunset, such as the one contained in the House bill, is simply too short to allow law enforcement to accomplish what it needs to do to rout terrorists from this country. The legislation before us contains provisions that could actually help in the current investigation into Osama bin Laden and his network in the United States and abroad. I urge this Senate to pass this legislation and get it to the President for his signature. We are in a sustained war against terror, and we have waited long enough. I

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions of the Social Security Act, provisions of current law that reduce earned Social Security benefits for teachers and other government pensioners. Under current law, public employees, whose salaries are often lower than those in the private sector to begin with, find that they are penalized and held to a different standard when it comes to retirement benefits. The unfair reduction in their benefits makes it more difficult to recruit teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. The legislation that I introduce today addresses two provisions in the current Social Security Act that create this problem: The Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset provision. The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and also receive a government pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund. Private sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 90 percent of their first $561 in average monthly career earnings, plus 32 percent of monthly earnings up to $3,381 and 15 percent of earnings above $3,381. Government pensioners, however, are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $561 in career monthly earnings, a penalty of $280.50 per month. To my mind it is simply unfair, especially at a time when we need to be doing all we can to attract qualified people government service, and this bill will allow government pensioners the chance to earn the same 90 percent to which non-government pension recipients are entitled. The current Government Pension Offset provision reduces Social Security spousal benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the spouse's public employment civil service pension. This can have the effect of taking away, entirely, a spouse's benefits from Social Security. It is beyond my understanding why we would want to discourage people from pursuing careers in public service, such as teaching, by essentially saying that if you do become a teacher your family will suffer by not being able to receive the full retirement benefits they would otherwise be entitled to. There is a teaching crisis in California right now, as there is in many States. Yet current Social Security benefit rules penalize private sector employees who leave their jobs to become public school teachers, or public school teachers who work second jobs during the summer months to help make ends meet. They lose legitimately earned Social Security benefits. And in certain cases, their wives and husbands will lose spousal benefits, too. That is simply not fair and not right. California faces a teaching crisis, and we need to do everything we can to attract and keep good, qualified people as public school teachers, not make an already difficult job more difficult. The same can be said for other public employees, like police and fire fighters. This legislation addresses this inequity in the Social Security Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions of the Social Security Act, provisions of current law that reduce earned Social Security benefits for teachers and other government pensioners. Under current law, public employees, whose salaries are often lower than those in the private sector to begin with, find that they are penalized and held to a different standard when it comes to retirement benefits. The unfair reduction in their benefits makes it more difficult to recruit teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. The legislation that I introduce today addresses two provisions in the current Social Security Act that create this problem: The Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset provision. The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and also receive a government pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund. Private sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 90 percent of their first $561 in average monthly career earnings, plus 32 percent of monthly earnings up to $3,381 and 15 percent of earnings above $3,381. Government pensioners, however, are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $561 in career monthly earnings, a penalty of $280.50 per month. To my mind it is simply unfair, especially at a time when we need to be doing all we can to attract qualified people government service, and this bill will allow government pensioners the chance to earn the same 90 percent to which non-government pension recipients are entitled. The current Government Pension Offset provision reduces Social Security spousal benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the spouse's public employment civil service pension. This can have the effect of taking away, entirely, a spouse's benefits from Social Security. It is beyond my understanding why we would want to discourage people from pursuing careers in public service, such as teaching, by essentially saying that if you do become a teacher your family will suffer by not being able to receive the full retirement benefits they would otherwise be entitled to. There is a teaching crisis in California right now, as there is in many States. Yet current Social Security benefit rules penalize private sector employees who leave their jobs to become public school teachers, or public school teachers who work second jobs during the summer months to help make ends meet. They lose legitimately earned Social Security benefits. And in certain cases, their wives and husbands will lose spousal benefits, too. That is simply not fair and not right. California faces a teaching crisis, and we need to do everything we can to attract and keep good, qualified people as public school teachers, not make an already difficult job more difficult. The same can be said for other public employees, like police and fire fighters. This legislation addresses this inequity in the Social Security Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the resolution to approve the bilateral trade agreement signed by the United States and Vietnam on July 13, 2000. I believe this agreement is in the best interests of the United States and Vietnam and will do much to foster the political and economic ties between the two countries. Under the terms of the agreement, the United States agrees to extend most-favored nation status to Vietnam, which would significantly reduce U.S. tariffs on most imports from Vietnam. In return, Vietnam will undertake a wide range of market-liberalization measures, including extending MFN treatment to U.S. exports, reducing tariffs, easing barriers to U.S. services, such as banking and telecommunications, committing to protect certain intellectual property rights, and providing additional inducements and protections for inward foreign direct investment. These steps will significantly benefit U.S. companies and workers by opening a new and expanding market for increased exports and investment. Just as important for the United States, this agreement will promote economic and political freedom in Vietnam by bringing Vietnam into the global market economy, tying it to the rule of law, and increasing the wealth and prosperity of all Vietnamese. I share the concerns many have expressed about the human rights situation in Vietnam. No doubt, there is a great deal of room for improvement. Nevertheless, I am a firm believer in the idea that as you increase trade, as you increase communication, as you increase exposure to western and democratic ideals, you increase political pluralism and respect for human rights. The more you isolate, the greater the chance for human rights abuses. I believe the United States will continue to address this issue and use the closer ties that will come from an expanded economic and political relationship to press for significant improvement of Vietnam's human rights record. We owe the people of Vietnam no less. In addition, as I have stated above, I believe that this agreement will promote economic opportunity and the rule of law in Vietnam which will have a positive effect on that country's respect for human rights. Mr. President, this agreement is another step in the normalization of relations between the United States and Vietnam that began with the lifting of the economic embargo in 1994 and the establishment of diplomatic relations the following year. Let us not take a step backwards. We have the opportunity today to ensure that this process continues and the political and economic ties will grow to the benefit of all Americans and all Vietnamese. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution to approve the United States-Vietnam trade agreement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 26, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing. The committee will receive testimony on critical energy infrastructure security and the energy industry's response to the events of September 11, 2001.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Psychological Trauma and Terrorism: Assuring That Americans Receive the Support They Need, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 10 a.m.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 26, 2001. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss the administration perspective with regard to the new Federal Farm Bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 26, 2001, to conduct an oversight hearing on ``The Administration's National Money Laundering Strategy for 2001.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my ranking member, Senator Hutchison of Texas, to bring before the Senate the 2002 military construction appropriations bill and report. I point out that it is a bipartisan bill, it is carefully thought out, it is carefully balanced, and it is timely. The bill provides $10.5 billion in new budget authority. This represents a 17.5-percent increase over the fiscal year 2001 funding level and a 5.3-percent increase over the President's budget request. The bill, as reported from the committee, meets the budgetary authority and outlay limits established in the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. This is a robust bill, but it is a carefully considered and carefully balanced bill. Our goal from the outset has been to address the highest priority military construction requirements, both at home and abroad. The final product is the balanced mix of readiness projects, barracks and family housing projects, quality-of-life programs, such as child development centers, and an array of Reserve component initiatives. It is the military construction bill that funds the installations-- the home ports and the home bases--of our troops and ships and aircraft. It is the military construction bill that builds the piers and hangars and maintenance shops and operational centers that ready our troops and equipment for deployment. It is this bill that builds the barracks and family housing and childcare centers and medical facilities that serve America's military troops and their families. This bill funds the infrastructure that provides the foundation for training and preparing our military to fight, and for housing their families when they are away. Given the events of the past few weeks, and the events that we expect to unfold over the coming weeks and months, this bill could not be more timely. The bill was reported out of the full Appropriations Committee only yesterday. We moved it to the floor today in acknowledgement of the pressures under which we are currently operating. Our men and women in uniform cannot afford any delay in getting these projects underway. Although the bill exceeds the President's budget request, it barely scratches the surface of the enormous need for infrastructure improvements at our military installations throughout the world. It is not overstating the case to say that many of our men and women in uniform work in deplorable conditions at their installations and often have no choice but to live in houses and neighborhoods that are substandard and unsafe. We have a duty to provide better for the members of our military and their families, especially at a time when the President has ordered them to ``be ready'' for war. Briefly, I wish to outline some of the pertinent statistics. The bill provides $4.7 billion for military construction for active duty components and nearly $800 million for the Reserve components. Total military construction funded in this bill represents a 30- percent increase over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, and a 5.8- percent increase over the President's request. A large part of this increase is due to the acceleration of our efforts to upgrade barracks for our troops. The military construction total includes $1.2 billion for barracks construction, a 72-percent increase over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The bill also includes $4.1 billion for family housing, a 12.9- percent increase over fiscal year 2001. As you can see from these figures, barracks and family housing projects are among the highest priorities of the subcommittee, reflecting the importance of improving living conditions for our men and women in uniform. I point out that all the projects the ranking member and I and the subcommittee and the committee recommended were thoroughly screened and vetted with the services. They meet the rigid criteria imposed by law and by the Senate Armed Services Committee. They are good projects and they are needed projects. The money added in this bill for BRAC environmental cleanup will help the services to meet their most urgent requirements. But I wish to point out that it is going to take far more money and far more realistic budgeting--and I stress that because there has not been realistic budgeting in some of the services for cleanup of closed BRAC bases--to meet the long-range requirements imposed by the BRAC environmental remediation process. Before I yield the floor, I once again thank the ranking member, my friend from Texas, Senator Hutchison. She and her staff on the Republican side have been extraordinarily cooperative. I wish to acknowledge that and express my delight in the way in which we have been able to work together. I also thank the Appropriations Committee staff for their work on this bill. They have worked very hard, and I can certainly testify that Christina Evans and B.G. Wright of the majority staff, and Sid Ashworth and John Kem of the minority staff, and Matt Miller of my staff have just been tremendous. I am very grateful for the cooperation that will make this unanimous vote possible. This is an important bill for our Nation and our military forces. I now defer to the distinguished ranking member from Texas.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, once again, I thank the ranking member for her cooperation, and I thank the staff. I want to have printed in the Record a letter from the Department of the Navy specifically on the subject of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard cleanup. There have been real problems in this cleanup which has been characterized by delay and the inability to move forward. One major event was a toxic fire underground that burned undetected for 2 weeks before it was put out. I think the Navy understands certainly my depth of feeling, and I think it is supported by the ranking member, that they move expeditiously to clean up this base. This letter states their determination to do so. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Fine. Please proceed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the financial package before the Senate to help protect a vital industry to our Nation's economy. I believe that this legislation is one essential component in a series of steps that Congress has taken, and will continue to take, to address the tragic and horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. So far, Congress has taken considerable action in the wake of the unprecedented events last Tuesday. Congress condemned the violence in a joint resolution, Congress authorized the President to use ``all necessary and appropriate force'' to retaliate for the acts of war against our Nation, and Congress approved $40 billion to rebuild from the rubble and prevent further acts of terrorism during this time of great peril. These are the steps Congress has taken so far, but they are not the last of what we will do, or what we need to do to mitigate the damage and destruction. The next step we must take is to pass this financial relief package. Once this is passed, Congress will need to consider legislative solutions on other matters stemming from the September 11 attacks. For example: What long-term changes do we need to make to our aviation security system? How can we establish stricter guidelines on issuing visas? How do we build up our homeland defense against more deadly terrorist attacks in the future? What can we do to stimulate more consumer spending, more job creation, and more investment in this time of uncertainty? The events of September 11 demand that Congress and the President work together to remedy the devastation the attacks have inflicted upon our safety, our economy, and our livelihood. The legislation before us today is part of the comprehensive action Congress must take to help our Nation reclaim unprecedented growth of which we know our economy is capable. The terrorist attacks of September 11 have dealt a crippling blow to the airline industry. This package of assistance is essential to keep the airlines up and running because they are an important component to our Nation's economy. Airlines are the very backbone of our transportation infrastructure enabling people and goods to flow freely and quickly across our Nation. Airline travel and air cargo shipments interconnect our global economy and contribute a significant amount of jobs to the U.S. Economy. Consider the following: Approximately 1.2 million people work for the airlines in this country. Last year about 670 million passengers traveled on commercial airlines and the industry provided over 25 billion ton miles of freight delivery. The U.S. commercial aviation industry contributes over 10 percent of the Nation's GDP. Yesterday, David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, testified before the Commerce Committee. According to Mr. Walker, ``The continuation of a strong, vibrant, and competitive commercial air transportation system is in the national interest. A financially strong air transportation system is critical not only for the basic movement of people and goods, but also because of the broader effects this sector exerts throughout the economy.'' The contributions airlines make to our economy are clear, yet the industry estimates that the overall impact of the terrorist attacks will cost $24 billion and companies may be forced to lay off over 140,000 employees. Airline stocks plummeted when the market reopened Monday and they have continued to fall this week. Secretary Mineta has indicated that the industry has been losing $300 million a day in lost revenue since Tuesday, September 11. Some financial analysts predict the airline industry will lose $6.5 billion this year, triple the $2.2 billion loss that was expected. The ripple effect of the terrorist attacks is clear. Once people stop flying, airlines cut back on flights. Lighter flight schedules mean airplanes lie idle and companies' employees lose their jobs. Fewer flights mean airlines do not need as many new planes or airplane parts. So it comes as no surprise that this week, Boeing announced 30,000 employees would lose their jobs. I have received many letters asking me to support this plan before the Senate, and I believe it is important to point out that the vast majority of these letters are not from airline employees, but rather, from workers whose jobs are indirectly dependent on airlines. One such letter is from G. Hardy Acree, the director of Sacramento County's airports. Mr. Acree wrote, ``Quality air service is critical to our community. Without it, Sacramento County's economic development and tourism industry will suffer, and the growth we've worked so hard to sustain will be lost. This is an issue whose impact goes well beyond the airline sector.'' The same could be said for all of California's 58 counties and, in fact, for every one of the 3,142 counties across the Nation. The economic impact is spreading beyond U.S. borders. London-based Virgin Atlantic Airways said it must trim its operations by 20 percent and lay off 1,200 employees, the first ever layoffs for the company in its 18 years of existence. Just as the problems are not confined to one region, they are not confined to one industry. The president of the American Society of Travel Agents, Richard Copland, wrote to tell me of the tremendous losses suffered by the travel agencies across the U.S. According to Mr. Copland, ``There are many other groups of firms that are normally thought of as separate `industries' but that in fundamental reality are an integral part of what airlines do. Travel agencies are among those.'' Travel agencies, hotels, cruises, and many other industries directly depend on the airline industry. And there is almost no business that does not indirectly depend on the airlines. How else do employees meet with clients? How else do goods ship overnight? As Jonathan Tisch, chairman of the Travel Business Roundtable, wrote, ``The link that airlines provide to the travel and tourism industry cannot be underscored enough. Airlines are the conduit for so many industry activities, bringing travelers to hotels, resorts, restaurants and shopping in cities and towns around the country.'' I want to acknowledge Mr. Tisch's point, the collective ripple effect airlines have on the entire economy is immense. I would like to ask my colleagues and constituents to think of this legislation, not as a bailout plan, but as a relief package. It is just compensation for the direct damage inflicted on the airline industry and the U.S. economy as a whole. One more point I would like to make is that since my husband is on the board of an airline company, the easiest thing for me to do would be not to vote on this legislation. The Senate Ethics Committee, however, has assured me that voting on this bill is not a conflict of interest for me because there will be a wide range of beneficiaries from this legislation. Furthermore, at this time, the economic ramifications are as such that I am compelled to vote on this bill because I strongly believe it is in the national interest to do so. We have allocated billions to rebuild in New York and Virginia. Let us also allocate billions to rebuild our Nation's economy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for his encouraging words. As I am sure he knows, the SCAAP reimbursements provided in prior years did not nearly cover the costs states and localities incurred to incarcerate illegal aliens in their jurisdictions. In Fiscal Year 2000, the last year for which such cost figures are available, the cost for states and localities amounted to more than $11 billion. Thus, last year's funding level covered only $565 million, or 5.1 percent, of the actual costs. A cut along the magnitude of that which is included in the Committee bill would be absolutely devastating. The State of Wisconsin would lose more than $1.1 million in funding; Rhode Island would lose over $900,000; Pennsylvania would lose over $1 million. Thus, even states which have not traditionally had to confront the growth in illegal immigration are bearing the costs of this Federal responsibility. When the Federal government fails in its responsibility to control our nation's borders, local taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens in State and local jails. I will work closely with my colleagues in both bodies during the weeks to come to insure that this bill adequately funds SCAAP.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with a number of my colleagues and the Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee, the Senator from South Carolina, to discuss funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, popularly known as SCAAP. As the Senator knows, States and localities across the nation, especially those with high immigration populations, face extraordinary costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens. The burden continues to grow, for high impact States like California, for example. In February 1997, there were 17,904 undocumented felons in the California correctional system with Immigration and Naturalization Service holds. By the end of February 2001, there were 20,937 illegal alien inmates in the system with INS holds. California taxpayers can expect to spend $571.2 million this year to cover these costs. Over the past few years, the SCAAP program has reimbursed roughly 33 percent of the costs incurred by State and local governments. Since 1997, the authorization level for SCAAP has been $650 million. Funding for the program peaked at $585 million in FY 1999, and dropped to $565 million in FY 2000. Given the rising costs associated with criminal alien incarceration, the legislation my colleagues and I had hoped that Congress would see fit to fully fund this important program at the authorized level of $650 million. I am concerned that the bill reported by the committee makes dramatic cuts in federal funding for SCAAP, reducing the level of funding by 53 percent to only $265 million. Given the urgency of the need and the fact that all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and more than 360 localities received SCAAP funding in the most recent reimbursement period, I would like to inquire of my friend from South Carolina if there is something that can be done to increase funding for this bill for SCAAP to a more appropriate level.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator, will we have opportunities to continue the line of speakers who were lined up before the vote on the resolution?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Further reserving the right to object, if I understand, then, the vote will be at 1:45, the Senate will go into recess until 3, and then the floor will be open to continue; is that correct?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President. All civilized nations, whether it is NATO, our European allies, Russia, China, the moderate Arab States, or anyone else--I received a call this morning from the Chinese Embassy saying the President of China had called our President yesterday to indicate China's solidarity with the United States and to offer any help. Indeed, that is a giant step forward. It is a beginning. I believe we must create a critical divide between civilized nations that will not sanction terrorism and spell out those that do and do something about it. Presently, the United States spends about $12 billion, spread among a number of Departments dealing with terrorism. The proposed budget will shortly be before the Senate. If we are to engage against this threat, I think we must also organize and coordinate our Government's effort. I speak now as chairman of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and also as a member of the Intelligence Committee. We must see that these dollars are wisely spent, not frittered among more than 40 Departments. I do not believe those dollars are well spent at the present time. We must also understand that homeland defense should be our highest priority: coherent and carefully balanced, with trained personnel in every State, and an intelligence network that provides a coordination between all branches of Government and each of our States. America has at its disposal a wide array of tools, but these tools must be directed carefully, with a coherent policy. This is not now the situation. I believe we must remedy it promptly. We Americans are a resilient, a determined, and a patriotic nation. We will not lose the spirit that makes us the greatest democracy on Earth by going after terrorists full scale. We have always been ready to respond in defense of freedom. And now that challenge is before us in a manner, shape and form that offers unprecedented challenges. We must respond. Let me also speak a few moments as a Californian. The four planes that were hijacked were all going to California; three to Los Angeles, one to San Francisco. Two hundred sixty-six people died on the planes. It is certain that many of them have families in California. To them, I extend my heartfelt sorrow. But I also extend a commitment that I will do everything in my power as one Senator to see that these deaths were not in vain. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues. Very frankly, my heart is filled with a great deal of mixed emotions. On the one hand, I want this country to smash back. On the other, I want us to be sure that we are on firm ground, that we know what we are doing, and that we are successful in our mission. Yesterday was one of the darkest days I can remember. Many have speculated that the loss of life may well only be exceeded by the battle, 1-day battle at Antietam during the civil war. It will certainly be more than the loss at Pearl Harbor. One of the things that I have recognized, and what should be abundantly clear, I think to all of us, is that there are those out there without a heart who are willing to carry out this kind of attack, and to do it with malevolence and cunning that defies conscience and humanity. That is really what we are up against. I really consider what happened in New York and at the Pentagon to be a declaration of war against the United States. I believe we must respond accordingly in a well-considered military way. I join the President, the congressional leadership, and particularly Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose remarks this morning share that same determination. Let there be no mistake. This attack was deliberately planned. It was planned to have the largest possible impact and to maximize the loss of innocent human life. The terrorists deliberately selected the largest planes with the greatest fuel loads to create the biggest explosion, to kill the most people, and to do it at a time of day when that would happen. They deliberately selected important symbols--one, the military headquarters of the United States, and the other a major center of American economic entrepreneurism. What is now emerging is genuine acts of heroism aboard our planes. Heroism aboard UAL Flight 93, which left Dulles International Airport, may well have prevented Flight 93 from striking the White House or the United States Capitol. Californians were aboard that plane. One Californian, Thomas Burnett of San Ramone, phoned his wife. He told her the flight was doomed but that he and two other passengers were determined to do something about it. ``I love you honey'' were Burnett's last words to his wife. He said, ``I know we are all going to die, but there are three of us who are going to do something about it.'' He worked for a company called Thoratec. He leaves three children. You might say he and others made the ultimate sacrifice. Yesterday firmly establishes in my mind that the major threat and No. 1 national security problem facing the United States is the asymmetrical attack, the unconventional and unpredictable horrific act of terrorism. I don't believe America can be a paper tiger in response. I think the United States should spare no effort to uncover, to ferret out, and to destroy those who commit acts of terrorism, those who provide the training camps, who shelter, who finance, and who support terrorists. Whether that enemy is a state or an organization, those who harbor them, who arm them, who train them, and permit them must, in my view, be destroyed. It is interesting to note that 3 weeks ago the British press carried articles which said that the bin Laden operation was prepared to launch--and this a quote--``an unprecedented attack against the United States.'' We know that the organization is wanted as well for two prior major terrorist attacks against the United States. It seems to me that there is a good indication we will shortly find who is responsible for this act of war against our country. And then we must strike back against them hard. It is also critical that America lead an international effort that makes clear to all nations that countenance terrorism, that harbor terrorists, that aid and abet their actions, that that country is an enemy of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a couple additional minutes.